Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Price's Patent Candle Company Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

De Vesci's Divorce Bills [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill,

Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company Bill,

As Amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

South Hants Water Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSRS. COATS (COMMITTEE REPORT).

Mr. LAMBERT: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state when the Report of the Committee to inquire into the recent increase of Messrs. Coats' cotton will be laid upon the Table; and whether such increase has proved to be justified by circumstances?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Horne): The Sub-Committee referred to in the right hon. Member's question has not yet reported.

Mr. LAMBERT: When may we expect the Report, in view of the time since the Committee was set up?

Sir R. HORNE: Yes; but I think my right hon. Friend will remember that after the last Report by the Committee there was a rejoinder by Messrs. Coats which the Sub-Committee are at present considering, and which they have not yet given their decision on.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

WAGES AND WORKERS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the cost of wages per ton of coal at the pit's mouth, the number of persons employed in the coalmining industry, and the output per person for the years 1913 and 1919, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): The cost of wages per ton of coal raised at the pit's mouth was 6s. 4.01d. in 1913 and 18s. 7.68d. in 1919; the numbers of persons employed in the industry were 1,110,884 in 1913 and 1,163,000 in 1919, and the output per person (above and below ground) was 259 tons for 1913 and 197½ tons for 1919.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is it not a fact that the output during last year was some 50,000,000 tons less than in 1913?

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Did the hon. Gentleman say that the cost of labour was 18s. per ton?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: 18s. per ton net.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is my hon. Friend aware of the shortage of output?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am fully aware of it.

Colonel NEWMAN: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what is the total yearly sum represented by the most recent increase in the wages of those employed in the coal industry; whether this sum will be met by an increase in the coal subsidy or by increased charges on the users of coal for household and industrial purposes; and, if by the latter alternative, what is the estimated advance in price per ton for household and industrial coal?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question, the recent increase in wages is estimated to cost approximately £31,500,000 apart from certain incidental and consequential increases. The other parts of the question relate to matters which are under consideration, and I hope to make a statement at an early date.

SUPPLIES IN IRELAND.

Major O'NEILL: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware
of the shortage of domestic coal and of anthracite for use in gas engines in the town of Ballymena, County Antrim; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am informed that a complaint of shortage at Ballymena has been received by the Irish Branch of the Coal Mines Department, but that a request for information to show which sources of supply were failing has not produced any reply. The normal supplies of coal to Ireland have recently been augmented considerably, and a substantial proportion has been sent to Belfast for distribution in the Northern Area. With regard to anthracite, the available supplies are being distributed to the best advantage, priority being given to householders, public utility undertakings and to food-producing industries.

Major O'NEILL: Is it not a fact that this supply of coal relatively is still very much smaller in Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is a smaller average everywhere; I cannot say for Ireland.

Mr. MOLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the shortage for the three months ending March this year is not 50,000 tons in excess of that for 1917?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say off-hand, but the hon. Gentleman can put down a question.

IRONSTONE PITS (COAL SHORTAGE).

Mr. WATERSON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the serious shortage of coal at Broughton, near Kettering; whether he is aware that workmen from the neighhouring ironstone pits during this spell of wet weather have had to keep putting on wet clothes because of no coal in the homes; that these men are feeling the effects of this unhealthy practice and that unless the position is at once relieved there is likelihood of serious trouble; whether he is aware that a letter and an urgent wire have been sent to the Department concerned, both asking for immediate replies as to what is being done, and still remain unanswered; can he state what he is doing in the matter;
and does he intend to try and maintain the proper registered supply?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There has been a shortage at Broughton, but the position is now relieved and the latest reports received show that normal conditions prevail as regards ordinary supplies. Action was at once taken upon receipt of the telegram and letter referred to. Assistance was obtained from a local industrial firm and industrial coal is being held in reserve until the emergency supplies now on order are received.

Mr. WATERSON: Why was there no reply sent to the letter or the urgent telegram calling attention to important facts affecting the health of the place?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am sorry if that is so, but I think action in the matter is more important than a reply.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this district sickness is rampant, and in many homes where sickness prevails they have not a bit of coal even in cases of bronchitis?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No reply to a telegram could have prevented that.

Mr. WATERSON: The telegram was sent more than ten days ago.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My information is that action was taken immediately the letter and telegram were received. Action cannot be taken instantaneously in a matter like this.

Mr. WATERSON: It is ten days ago and it is scandalous.

INCREASED PRICES.

Mr. W. THORNE: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Coal Controller to increase the price of coal not less than 10 per cent. per ton; and when the rise is expected to take place?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: These questions are under consideration, and I hope to make a statement at an early date.

WREXHAM GAS COMPANY.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that it became necessary for
the directors of the Wrexham Gas Company, which is a statutory undertaking, to apply to the Board of Trade for powers to increase the maximum price of gas from 4s. to 5s. per 1,000 cubic feet owing to the increased price of coal, labour, and materials; that an order, dated 29th September, 1919, was granted, but at the same time restricting the dividend to 3¾ per cent. per annum; that the company's accounts for the year ended 31st December, 1919, have been submitted to the Board of Trade for approval, and the directors recommend the payment of 5 per cent. per annum for the first nine months of the year, i.e., to the date of the Board of Trade order, and at the rate of 3¾ per cent. per annum for the last three months of the year; and that a notification has now been received from the Board of Trade stipulating that the dividend for the whole of the year 1919 shall be at the rate of 3¾ per cent. per annum only, notwithstanding the fact that the order came into force as from the 29th September, 1919; and whether, as this action of the Board of Trade will affect the financial position of the company, he will give the case further consideration?

Sir R. HORNE: The facts of this case are as stated by my hon. Friend. The matter at issue is one which depends on the legal interpretation of the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1918, of the Order made by the Board of Trade there under, and of the Company's Special Act. I shall be happy to give further consideration to the case, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

Sir R. THOMAS: Why, in the first instance, was the rate of interest restricted to 3¾ per cent.?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid the matter is too elaborate to go into in answer to a question, but I may say briefly, that according to the Regulations that deal with such matters as this, we have to take a particular rate of interest over the appropriate period for which the average dividend is paid. What the firm did not do was to inform us of the fact that they were entitled to pay half-yearly dividends. Now that the matter has been brought to my notice, I am prepared to consider it from the point of view of the half-year.

Sir R. THOMAS: I am much obliged.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BUILDING STONE PRICES (SCOTLAND).

Major MURRAY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now call for a Report, in regard to the high prices for Scottish building stone charged at the quarry mouth, from the Sub-Committee appointed under the Profiteering Act to investigate the question in February last?

Sir R. HORNE: The Scottish building stone to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is being investigated by the Sub-Committee in conjunction with other building stone, and I understand it may be some little time before the Committee are in a position to render their Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

WATCHES AND CLOCKS EXPORTED.

Mr. HIGHAM: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the fact that watches and clocks and other articles of this nature which are manufactured in Germany are brought into this country without any mark, either on the box or the clock itself, which indicates its point of origin, and that these clocks and watches and other classes of goods are being sold in this country as British made; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation, if necessary, so that every article coming from Germany is identified as having been made in that country, for the protection of the people in this country who do not want to buy German goods, particularly in view of the fact that the Merchandise Marks Act only requires goods of foreign make to indicate the country of origin in the event of that article having some English wording printed on the article or the box or box labels?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware that these goods are being imported, but I do not know that they are sold as British made. The Merchandise Marks Committee, which my predecessor set up to consider the desirability of amending or extending the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act relating to indications of origin, is now considering its report, and I must await that report before considering the question of the introduction of legislation.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY, Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS, and Mr. PALMER: rose—

Mr. MacVEAGH: One at a time!

Sir F. FLANNERY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Clause is not confined to watches and clocks, but includes gloves and a large number of other articles which are now being regularly brought into this country, and sold as of British manufacture?

Mr. C. PALMER: When will the Antidumping proposals of the Government, of which we heard so much at the General Election, be laid before the House?

Mr. NEWBOULD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how, if we do not buy German goods, we can expect, as hon. Members do, an indemnity from Germany?

Sir R. HORNE: The last two queries do not seem quite relevant to the question. As to the first supplementary question, I am not aware that there is the large importation going on referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I hope the House will recollect that legislation is necessary to deal with these matters, that at present there is a Committee of the House sitting, and that it would be extremely undesirable if I were to introduce legislation before I saw their Report.

Sir F. FLANNERY: Would the right hon. Gentleman send to the Committee particulars of the importation to which I have referred?

Sir R. HORNE: Certainly; I will do that.

Sir P. MAGNUS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the marking of goods made in Germany is often regarded by the Germans as an excellent advertisement for their manufactures?

Sir R. HORNE: I know it used to be. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not now!"]

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can say if any, and what, steps are being taken to restrict the importation of German clocks before the Merchandise Marks Committee's Report is received?

Sir R. HORNE: It is not possible to restrict the importation of these clocks without introducing legislation for that
purpose. In view of the fact that the Report of the Merchandise Marks Committee is expected shortly, I cannot see my way to take any action before I receive the Report.

ALLOCATION OF SHIPS SURRENDERED.

Viscount CURZON: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether the allocation of ex-German ships to our Allies and to Great Britain so far decided can now be stated; and if he can state whether any ships and, if so, which still remain to be allocated?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Wilson): I have been asked to reply. No ex-enemy vessel has as yet been allocated to final ownership by the Reparation Commission. The Maritime Service to the Reparation Commission has, however, announced that they will proceed to the division of the ex-enemy tonnage on the 15th June. The present division of ex-enemy ships delivered under the terms of the Armistice, is only a temporary allocation to management pending a decision as to final ownership.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Are they war-ships or commercial ships?

Colonel WILSON: Commercial.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the report true that 155,000 tons of merchant shipping which was to have been allotted to this country has been handed over to the French, and, if so, by whose authority?

Colonel WILSON: I cannot answer that without notice. It does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

MUNITIONS FACTORY (ROTHENSTEIN EXPLOSION).

Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a report of an explosion in the munitions factory at Rothenstein, resulting in the death of more than 94 persons; whether he can say what munitions are being made at Rothenstein; and whether the manufacture of such munitions infringes on the Peace Treaty with Germany?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I am mak-
ing inquiries into this matter, and will communicate with the hon. and learned Member as soon as possible.

RUSSIAN PRISONERS OF WAR.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 66.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to the approximate number of Russian prisoners of war in Germany; whether any steps are being taken for their repatriation; and whether His Majesty's Government are putting any obstacles in the way of the return of these men?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am informed that there are some 200,000 Russian prisoners of war in Germany. I understand that the matter is engaging the serious attention of the German Government, who are in communication with the International Red Cross and the Soviet Government on the subject. The answer to the third part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the fact that these men were taken prisoner fighting by our side, are we interesting ourselves in their return and doing anything to alleviate the great hardships they are suffering?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman propose some useful means by which we could intervene?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why not address a Note to the German Government in view of the fact that these men were our former Allies?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is a matter, not for the German Government, but for the Soviet Government.

WORSTED SUITINGS.

Mr. HURD: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what were the average prices of best-quality 22 oz. worsted suitings for the years 1914 and 1919; and what are the corresponding prices at which these goods are now being bought by tailors from the manufacturers for delivery next winter?

Sir R. HORNE: I am informed that such a cloth as is referred to in the question was sold by manufacturers at about
6s. per yard in 1914 and at about 23s. per yard a year ago. For delivery this year, about 35s. per yard is reported to be the price. I may add that I am also informed with regard to worsted suitings that the great demand at present is for a lighter cloth than that named; that the kind of cloth referred to is special and made in very limited quantities, and that the grades of wool needed for manufacturing this class of cloth are scarce and difficult to obtain.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

COLONIAL MEAT.

Colonel NEWMAN: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the present total weekly consumption in carcases of Colonial meat as compared with a corresponding week in 1913–14; whether he has been able to arrive at the probable increase in the consumption of Colonial meat if the price was reduced to the pre-War figure; and would such increased consumption be warranted by the supply of meat in store, or on board ship, or awaiting shipment to this country?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Figures of the pre-War weekly consumption of Colonial meat are not available to enable the comparison asked for to be made. The increase of consumption which might result from a reduction in price is a matter of conjecture; the supply would fully warrant an increased consumption. The whole matter is engaging the attention of a Committee of the Cabinet.

Colonel NEWMAN: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a decision that the taxpayer of this country shall be allowed to cut his loss, and that the glut of Colonial meat now in store be offered for sole at pre-War prices rests with the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Food, or the Treasury, or has the matter to be referred to the Cabinet for final decision?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The position as regards imported meat is being carefully examined by the Departments mentioned and also by the Cabinet.

Colonel NEWMAN: Which of the Departments investigated this matter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Ministry of Food, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Shipping.

Mr. BILLING: Are any steps taken to inquire who is responsible for the administration which causes these things, or is it simply taken as read?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The War is mainly responsible for many of these things.

Mr. BILLING: But the War has been over for nearly two years!

Col. NEWMAN: Has the hon. Gentleman seen a report in the newspapers that Colonial frozen meat is to be released at once for consumption?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, I have not seen that report.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is it not a fact that the Government has been profiteering in meat?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir.

WOOL CONTROL.

Captain COOTE: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to re-impose the control on wool; and, if so, will he endeavour to give due notice of the fact so that purchasers at the present uncontrolled price may not suffer unjustifiable loss through having to sell at the controlled price?

Sir R. HORNE: It is not intended to re-impose the control on wool. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING ACT.

ELECTEIC LAMP INDUSTRY.

Mr. SWAN: 12.
asked what action it is proposed to take in connection with the finding of the Sub-Committee set up under the Profiteering Act which investigated the electric lamp industry?

Sir R. HORNE: Certain representations have been received from the Electric Lamp Manufacturers' Association of Great Britain, Limited, concerning the Report of the Sub-Committee appointed by the Standing Committee on Trusts to conduct an investigation into the Electric Lamp Industry.
These representations have been referred to the Sub-Committee in order that they might consider whether they desire to modify their Report in any respect in consequence of the representations.
The Sub-Committee's reply was only received on Saturday afternoon, and until I have had an opportunity of considering it, I am unable to make a definite statement on the matter.

Mr. A. SHORT: Does it agree with the original Report?

Sir R. HORNE: I cannot even say that.

SEWING COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. SWAN: 13.
asked what action it is proposed to take in connection with the findings of the Committee set up under the Profiteering Act which investigated the sewing cotton industry?

Sir R. HORNE: The Sub-Committee appointed by the Standing Committee on Trusts are further investigating the subject of sewing cotton, and it is proposed to await their Report before deciding whether any, and if so what, action should be taken.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this Committee is likely to report? Is he aware that, in the meantime, the consumers of cotton have to pay 2½d. per reel?

Sir R. HORNE: I think my right hon. Friend will recognise that when a rejoinder is put in by a firm whose conduct is being inquired into which goes to the very root of the matter it is impossible to do anything until the Sub-Committee has dealt with it, and reported upon it. I have no way of compelling a Sub-Committee to act more expeditiously. They are doing voluntary work and we must await their decision.

Mr. WATERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite their decision?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware how I can expedite the decision of a Committee which is doing voluntary work.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Could not a committee of reliable salaried officials be set up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."]—you have a good many to spare and could they not expedite this Report?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

WORSTED YARNS.

Mr. SWAN: 14.
asked what action it is proposed to take in connection with the findings of the Committee set up under the Profiteering Act which investigated the supply and prices of worsted yarns.

Sir R. HORNE: If the hon. Member will refer to page 4 of the Report on Worsted Yarns (Command Paper No. 550), he will observe that the Report does not purport to be a final Report, but that the Sub-Committee appointed by the Standing Committee on Prices of the Central Committee which has already investigated wool has been asked to pursue further the investigation into worsted yarns. The question of what action, if any, should be taken will be considered when the Report of the Sub-Committee is received.

MOTOR FUEL.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state what action it is proposed to take in connection with the findings of the Committee set up under the Profiteering Act which investigated the prices for motor fuel?

Sir R. HORNE: I am at present unable to add anything to the answer which was given to the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on the 22nd March.

FREIGHT RATES.

Mr. LUNN: 20.
asked whether, in view of the recent increase in freight rates, he will institute an inquiry under the Profiteering Act into the profits of ship-owners and the justification for any increase in freight rates at the present time?

Sir R. HORNE: I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion to the notice of the Central Committee.

Sir W. RAEBURN: Is it not a fact that there has been a very serious fall in freights throughout the world?

Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the fact that there is no hope of reaching the end of questions, will you rule, Mr. Speaker, how many questions one hon.
Member may ask? Nearly all the questions up to now have been asked by two hon. Members on the Labour Benches.

OIL BORING, DERBYSHIRE.

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any further information respecting the attempts to find oil by boring in Derbyshire and other counties; if the Derbyshire well continues to flow; and what is being done with the oil pumped up?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to a reply on this subject which was given on 8th March to the hon. Member for North Newcastle-on-Tyne. The position is unchanged since that date. The well at Hardstoft continues to flow at the same rate, and the crude oil is for the present being held in storage.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, roughly, how many gallons have been collected up to date?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer that without notice.

BRITISH IMPORTS.

Mr. SUGDEN: 19.
asked what total imports have been recorded as entering Great Britain from the United States of America and France, as also from Germany and Austria since the Armistice.

Sir R. HORNE: The answer will involve giving a Statistical Statement, and, with the permission of the House, I will have this printed in the Official Report as soon as the figures have been prepared.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the number, and what was the value, of motor cars and motor chassis imported from the United States during the months of January, February, and March, 1920; and what Customs duties have been collected on these imports?

Sir R. HORNE: During the months of January, February and March, 1920, the registered imports into the United Kingdom of motor cars consigned from the United States of America were 5,244 in number, and the declared value of these cars was £1,799,184. The number of
chassis for motor cars registered as imported from the United States during the same period was 1,879, and their declared value was £809,974. These figures include imports of motor cars and chassis exempt from Customs duty. The amount of the Customs duty collected on the imports of which I have given the number and value was £580,985 16s. 10d.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What proportion were commercial vehicles and pleasure vehicles?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question offhand.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest the placing of a duty on American cars?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be opposition to that?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD SIGNS (STANDARDISATION).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether anything is being done, or will be done, to revise and to standardise all road signs now in use throughout Great Britain with a view to eliminating those now proved to be unnecessary or erecting others where required, in view of the experience gained since their erection?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): The County Surveyors' Society, at my request, have appointed a committee to consider and advise on the question of road signs generally. I hope to receive a report from this committee in the near future.

ROAD VEHICLES (NOISE).

Major GLYN: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will draw the attention of the Road Transport Committee of his Department to the excessive noise made by certain road vehicles, especially road steam-tractors of an old design; whether he is aware that under present circumstances the police have but limited powers to deal with this matter; and whether, in view of the distress caused to many householders living on main thoroughfares by the passage of these vehicles at night and the alarm to
horses generally, he will consider what steps can be taken to check this nuisance?

Sir E. GEDDES: The question referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend is included in the terms of reference of the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles, and will be considered by them in due course.

FALMOUTH (RAILWAY FACILITIES).

Commander Sir E. NICHOLL: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider the early advisability of doubling the main line from Truro to Falmouth, in view of the growing importance of Falmouth as a ship-building and ship-repairing port, coaling station, and port of call for steamers landing and embarking passengers, seeing that the want of better railway facilities is seriously felt and has a great retarding effect on the growth and development of the port?

Sir ERIC GEDDES: I am not aware that existing railway facilities have had any retarding effect upon the development of Falmouth as a port; but the Great Western Railway Company have under consideration additional running facilities on the line from Truro, and they have recently decided to add to the siding accommodation at Falmouth.

RAILWAY TOURIST TICKETS.

Mr. GILBERT: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, during the forth coming holiday months, the railway companies will grant the pre-War privileges of tourist tickets, namely, permission to break the journey at any station, and to return by alternative routes, on long distance and holiday resort return tickets which are now issued at the present rate of fares?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am in communication with the railway companies on this matter.

GREATER LONDON (TRAFFIC COMMITTEE).

Mr. GILBERT: 62.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can now announce the decision of the Government as regards the Report of the Advisory Committee on London Traffic recommending the setting up of a traffic committee for Greater London; and whether the Government propose to introduce legislation this Session on the subject?

Sir E. GEDDES: The Government has considered the Report of the Advisory Committee on London Traffic, and, while accepting in principle the recommendation to set up a Central Traffic Authority for London, recognises that complicated questions in regard to finance and the relationship of the Authority to the Departments of State and to the local authorities are involved. These require and are receiving close attention.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that until the whole question of London traffic has been decided you cannot deal with the transport of the whole country, because it all converges upon London?

Sir E. GEDDES: Obviously you cannot deal with the transport of the whole country until you consider London, but I do not see why progress should not be made.

Mr. JONES: Why is there this delay in the matter of London traffic?

Sir E. GEDDES: Because the report of the Committee over which my hon. Friend presided is a very long and important one, and requires consideration.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department do all they can to do away with the enormous congestion that we have in London, and not wait?

Sir E. GEDDES: With that object a Committee was appointed to consider, for the fourth time in 15 years, the London traffic problem, and I am doing my best to give effect to it.

CANALS (SLOW-GOING TRAFFIC).

Mr. SUGDEN: 63.
asked the Minister of Transport what steps have been taken by him to utilise the canals of the country for slow-going traffic?

Sir E. GEDDES: With one or two exceptions (such as coal traffic) which are subject to abnormal conditions, the canals are carrying traffic to the full capacity of the craft available, having regard to the effect of the 8-hour day.

CIVIL AVIATION.

Mr. SUGDEN: 64.
asked the Minister of Transport when he will be able to give details of his plans for assisting endeavour and progress in civil aviation?

Sir E. GEDDES: As I stated in my speech on 24th March the Ministry of Transport is not responsible for civil aviation. The question is therefore one which should be addressed to the Air Ministry.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT ACT, 1919.

Mr. DOYLE: 65.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the panel of experts to act as advisory committees under Section 23 (1) of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, has yet been set up; and whether he has considered the advisability of inviting the British Rubber Tyre Manufacturers' Association to nominate one of its members to act on this panel?

Sir E. GEDDES: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. I shall be glad to invite the association referred to to nominate a member to act on the Panel set up under Section 23 (1) of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919.

WOMEN MAGISTRATES (SELECTION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether there is a body known as the Women's Central Advisory Committee for the selection of women magistrates in existence; if so, under what law or Act of Parliament was this body set up; what are its powers; what are the qualifications for its members; and why is there such a body for the selection of women magistrates and not for the selection of men magistrates?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): In February last the Lord Chancellor invited the assistance of certain ladies to act in Committee for the purpose of advising him in the selection of women as Justices of the Peace. Its members have been selected, because, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, they are best qualified to advise him.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of my question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It rests with the Lord Chancellor.

POLAND (PASSPORTS).

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that
passports have been refused to Miss Evelyn Sharpe and Mr. Arthur Watts, British subjects, who are anxious to proceed to Poland in connection with the work of the Society of Friends in fighting the typhus epidemic there raging; what office or Department is responsible for these refusals; and what are the reasons for this action?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that the applications for passports in these cases have been approved.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT.

Lord R. CECIL: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will cause a Report or Reports to be forthwith presented to this House describing the actual state of things in Ireland, including particularly the extent to which the machinery of government is paralysed there?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Irish Government have been instructed to prepare a Report on the condition of Ireland recently, and as soon as it has been considered I hope to be able to announce that it is being presented.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is it not a fact that the Government, as well as the machinery, is paralysed?

Lord R. CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication to when this Report will be issued?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is being prepared, and I hope it will be circulated within a day or two.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the Report show the extent to which the Government itself is responsible for the paralysis?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Report I have in mind is one stating exactly what are the conditions in Ireland now. When it is presented, the House will be able to draw its own inference.

Major O'NEILL: Is it not a fact that for some days last week a Soviet Committee was in complete charge of the City of Waterford?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet come to any decision in regard to the limitation of Debate on the Government of Ireland Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As announced to the House, the Committee is now engaged in allocating the time, and the Government await their Report.

Mr. DEVLIN: Do the Government seriously intend to go on with this Bill? Could not the time be better applied to the Blind Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I suppose the hon. Member meant that by way of a joke. The Government are entirely pledged to go on with it.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of not having the guillotine for the first two days of the Debate, in order to see whether after that it is necessary to have any guillotine at all?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The matter has been very carefully considered, and if my hon. Friend had been present in the House when I announced the arrangement, he would have been aware that it met with, if not complete, at any rate, general assent. He will understand therefore that the proposal must be adhered to.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: If the Committee recommend an extension of the time allowed will the right hon. Gentleman accept their Report?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committee was appointed to allocate the time agreed to by the Government. But I am by no means prepared to say that if the Committee recommend a day or two more the Government will not acquiesce.

Lord R. CECIL: Will it not be necessary to have a specific motion to allow the Bill to be considered by a Committee of the whole House? Must not steps be first taken to remove it from the Standing Committee to a Committee of the whole House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: A general motion will be made as soon as the Committee report, and it will be in the form which is rendered necessary by the Report.

Major O'NEILL: 44.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to take the Committee stage of the Government of Ireland Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give a date to-day, but I hope to do so later in the week.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (PRE-WAR PENSIONS).

Mr. LEONARD LYLE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, to encourage the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, he will reconsider the scale of pre-War pensions granted to ex-members of the force, many of whom are now in a state of semi-starvation?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The case of pre-War pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary is being considered along with the case of other classes of pre-War pensioners by the Cabinet Committee.

Sir E. CARSON: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to receive the decision upon this matter, which has been going on for many months and causing great disappointment?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I said in reply to the question last week that I hoped to be able to give an answer on Monday next.

LORD-LIEUTENANT AND SIR J. TAYLOR.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is in a position to announce any change in the Government's Irish policy, whether raids and arrests in connection with political offences are to cease; whether Sir John Taylor has been dismissed, or suspended; and whether Lord French has been invited to resign?

Sir E. CARSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, will he give any information as to the two police contables who were shot yesterday?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Information regarding the question of the hon. and learned Member (Sir E. Carson) has been asked for by the Irish office. The Irish policy of His Majesty's Government is to protect the lives and property of law-abiding citizens, and whatever steps are, in their opinion, necessary to carry out that policy will be taken. Sir John Taylor has neither been dismissed nor suspended, but has been granted a month's leave at his own request. There is no foundation for
the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: At what date do the Government propose to protect the lives and property of law-abiding citizens?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I said the Government are doing, and intend to continue to do, everything in their power with that object.

Mr. JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman know what is happening in Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.

CRIME.

Lord R. CECIL: (by Private Notice) asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can give any information about the reported murder of two policemen at Upton, in County Cork, on Sunday; the wounding of a policeman at Ennis on Saturday; the attempt to blow up a police barracks at Armagh on Sunday; a raid on a post office at Kerry on Saturday; and whether any other serious outrages have occurred in Ireland during the week-end?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The Divisional Commander of Bandon reports as follows:
On Sunday a patrol of one sergeant and two constables when passing near Upton Railway Station, County Cork, were ambushed at 5 p.m. by an armed party in a wood. Sergeant Train and Constable Goldrick were shot dead. The third man, Constable Power, escaped uninjured. The police were armed. Their arms were not taken by the murderers.

Lord R. CECIL: Did the police use their arms?

Mr. HENRY: Police-Constable Power reported that he fired, but naturally, as it was an ambush in a wood, he saw that his return fire would be ineffective. The reports proceeds:
At 10.45 p.m. on Saturday, while Constable Sam Swanton was on his way to his lodging, having reported off duty, he was attacked by a number of men, one of whom fired a revolver, the bullet passing through the fleshy part of his thigh, about four inches above the knee. The constable made his escape, when he was fired on again. The wound is clean and no complications are feared. The constable made a statement, and three men have been arrested in connection with the outrage.
As to the report in the Press regarding the attempt to blow up a police barracks
at Armagh, where a bomb was used, I can give no further information. A raid seems to have been made on a post office in Kerry, but I am unable to give further information in regard to that. In addition to the matters referred to by the Noble Lord, there was also an attack on a police barrack at Feeny in County Londonderry, where a bomb was used. Last night an attack was made at 2 a.m. on Clonroche Police Barracks, in County Wexford, by 200 armed men, who used hand grenades. They were beaten off at 4.20 by the constabulary. No injuries were sustained by the police.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Has there been any lessening of crime in Ireland since the introduction of the Home Rule Bill?

Mr. HENRY: No, I cannot say that there has been.

Colonel LOWTHER: Will the men who have been arrested and been imprisoned for the murder of these police be given their freedom if they threaten to go on hunger-strike?

Major O'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, if there is any truth in the report that on two or three days last week an Irish Soviet Committee took over complete control of the City of Waterford?

Mr. HENRY: No, I cannot say.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: They would keep order, anyhow.

Mr. PALMER: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the disorderly scenes which occurred outside Wormwood Scrubs prison last night, and to the public feeling aroused by the hunger-strike there of Sinn Fein suspects imprisoned without trial; whether in order to remove any legitimate grounds of public agitation steps will be immediately taken so to relax the prison rules as to insure that these hunger-strikers shall no longer be treated as if they were persons who had been tried, convicted, and sentenced?

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I also gave notice to the Home Secretary of a private question. Most of the ground has been covered by the question which has been asked by my hon. Friend, but I do not think that he has asked how many of
these prisoners are convicted, how many are deported without trial, and how many are on hunger-strike?

Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask the Home Secretary, in the case of these men who who have been untried and unconvicted, if there is any evidence against them, why they are not put upon trial, and if there is no evidence against them why they are not released?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): There are 179 interned Irish prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs prison, and there are five other prisoners in another prison. A hundred and seventy-nine of the prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs are now refusing: food. The policy now followed in Ireland of giving special ameliorative conditions to such men has always been followed in this country. I do not understand that any demand is now being made by the men or their friends for any improvement in the conditions of the men interned in the country. They have not been brought to trial nor is it proposed to bring them to trial. As perhaps hon. Members are aware the fear of being murdered prevents truthful evidence being given in Ireland even upon the most atrocious crimes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to a recent case in which one of the witnesses was proved to have committed perjury and to be a man of no character whatever, and a verdict of innocence was brought in, and that being the case, will the Government reconsider this question before these men are starved to death?

Mr. SHORTT: The case referred to was brought to my notice, and may I remind the House that it was the Crown itself which disclosed the fact that the witness in question was a man of no character.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Are these men detained under an Order of the Home Office or under an Order of the Irish Office, and, in addition to never being tried, have they never been told what was the charge brought against them?

Mr. SHORTT: They are there by order of the Irish Government.

Captain W. BENN: Have they been informed of the charge laid against them, and if they persist in their hunger strike what will the Government do?

Mr. SHORTT: They are all told that they are arrested on suspicion, and that they can bring their case before the judicial tribunal.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of setting up an Advisory Committee under the Defence of the Realm Act, before whom these cases could be brought, under precisely the same procedure as before?

Mr. SHORTT: We cannot bring them before such a tribunal now, but they can, if they choose, be brought before a tribunal, if they ask for it themselves.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that these men, under the previous procedure, were always brought before the Committee without having to apply for it?

Mr. SHORTT: I will consider that, but as the law stands it has to be at their request.

Mr. PALMER: Will these men be allowed to die, or will the Government at the last moment give way as they did at Mountjoy?

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot make any statement on that point.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Why has not any charge been brought against them? If there is any charge surely they ought to be told what the charge is. If there is no charge and there is no evidence, on what principle of British law are these men kept in prison?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Prussianism.

Lord R. CECIL: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the continued growth of crime and disorder in Ireland.

The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter past Eight this evening.

FISHING INDUSTRY (DEVELOPMENT BILL).

Major ENTWISTLE: 28.
asked the Prime Minister when the Government propose to introduce the Bill referred to in
the King's Speech to encourage and develop the fishing industry?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): It is impossible for me to fix a date, but the Bill is in preparation, and I hope to be able to introduce it in the course of the present Session.

Lieut-Colonel MURRAY: Will the Bill apply to Scotland?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, Sir.

HOME WAR SERVICE (DECORATIONS).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the issue of the British war medal has been authorised to all coastguards with 28 days' mobilised service, but is not allowed in the cases of more than a million of the land forces who served on the strength of recognised units in this country; and, in view of the sense of grievance caused by the distinction, will any steps be taken to bring about uniformity of policy between the Admiralty and the War Office in the matter of medals?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am afraid I can add nothing to the replies which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on Tuesday last.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that men of the Durham Light Infantry and of the Yorkshire Regiment, wounded in the naval bombardment of the Hartlepools, should get no recognition, whereas the coastguard who served at their side have it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If I could be quite sure that the extension of the War medal to the personnel of the coastal and antiaircraft batteries actually in action would not open the door to its extension to over a million men who did not go to the War, and were not under the fire of the enemy, I should be very glad to do what the hon. Member suggests.

Colonel BURDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is possible to add a bar for this to the ordinary War medal?

Mr. ROYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration to the men engaged on the East and North-East Coast?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, but at the present time I am endeavouring to safeguard to those soldiers who went to the War the privilege and prerogative of wearing the War medal, and I am very much afraid of admitting anything which would lead to a large number of persons who never went to the War and thereby robbing those who did of their prerogative.

Colonel BURDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men afterwards left the country and went to the War?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If they went to the War, they will have the opportunity of wearing the medal.

Colonel BURDON: Could not a clasp be granted for this particular service?

Mr. CHURCHILL: A Committee is sitting on the question of the issue of clasps. I do not think the brief contact of the German Fleet with the British Coast affords justification for a special clasp being struck.

TREATY OF LONDON, 1915.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 32.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state when the Treaty, or Pact, of London, 1915, will be laid upon the Table, as promised by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The text of the Treaty will be laid in the course of about a week.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the progress of the negotiations that are taking place between the co-operative representatives of the Bolshevik Government and the British representatives with regard to trade with Russia?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave in regard to those negotiations on 21st April.

Sir S. HOARE: Are negotiations going on?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I must ask for notice of that question.

NEW BALTIC STATES.

Sir S. HOARE: 34.
asked the Prime Minister, whether any decision has been arrived at by the British Government with reference to the recognition of the new Baltic States.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the question is in the negative.

SOUTH RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER ARMY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Soviet Government have replied to the request to protect the remains of the volunteer army in South Russia that they will comply with the request if the ex-members of the Hungarian Soviet interned in Austria are allowed to go to Russia; and whether this course which meets with the approval of the Austrian Government, will obtain the sanction of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. BONAR LAW: In their reply to His Majesty's Government's proposal that an endeavour should be made to arrive at a settlement in South Russia, the Soviet Government have raised a number of issues including that of the ex-members of the Hungarian Soviet Government. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government are not aware that the statement contained in it is correct, but enquiries will be made. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will inform me of the source of his information.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If the original statement is accurate that the Austrian Government have approved of these people going back will His Majesty's Government facilitate this request?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have stated that this is a matter over which they have no control. Obviously we should have no objection to it being done.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As I am going to Vienna in a fortnight I will inquire into the matter.

BRITISH OFFICERS KILLED NEAR ROSTOV.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that
a Report was made to the War Office that Captain W. R. Freshfield and a brother officer serving in Southern Russia were missing and supposed to have been killed near Rostov; whether full inquiries have been made by the Government as to the whereabouts or fate of these two officers; whether he is aware that a private telegram addressed to M. Tchicherin, the Bolshevist Minister for Foreign Affairs, begging him to get true information about the fate of Captain Freshfield, said to have been killed at Rostov on 7th December ultimo, was, by direction of the Foreign Office, held up on the grounds that by inter-Allied agreement no radiograms of a private character were to be sent; and whether, in the event of the reply being in the affirmative, steps will be taken for the replacement of the Foreign Office official responsible by one who is able to give an intelligent interpretation to a regulation or agreement of this character?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative.
As regards the third part of the question the facts are incorrectly stated, and the fourth part of the question does not therefore arise.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Will the right hon. gentleman give facilities to the relatives and friends of these officers to send telegrams to Russia, in order that they may get information, if possible?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am making inquiries on the matter. I believe the Government have themselves sent messages on the subject.

TRADE TRANSACTIONS.

Mr. ALFRED SHORT: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether private firms will be allowed to negotiate trade transactions with the representatives of Russia independent of the Supreme Council?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The decision of the Supreme Council did not intend that private firms should be excluded if business could be better handled through their agency.

BRITISH OFFICERS MISSING.

Mr. LYLE: 68.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Panitchkin, commissary of the 136th
Cavalry, has been executed by the orders of the central Soviet Government; and whether he was responsible for the torture and murder of two British officers recently?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Harmsworth): As regards the first part of the hon. Member's question, I regret that I have no information to give the House. As to the second, my attention has already been called to a letter which was published in the press last month, making the allegations in question. I am, however, not in a position to say whether or not they are true. I may add that His Majesty's Government are making, and will continue to make, every effort to ascertain the fate of the British officers reported missing in South Russia.

NEGOTIATIONS (SOVIET GOVERNMENT).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 72.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the negotiations with Russia have broken down because His Majesty's Government refuse to allow Litvinoff to come to England and the rest of the Russian delegation refuse to come without him; and whether this was foreseen when the Foreign Office concluded to exclude Litvinoff?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is that negotiations have been temporarily suspended, but there has been no definite rupture.
It was not anticipated that the Soviet Government would allow a minor issue of this nature to stand in the way of the resumption of commercial relations. In any case the decision of His Majesty's Government in the case of Monsieur Litvinoff was taken solely on its own merits.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not rather unusual to refuse to receive the delegates they send?

MUNITIONS (COMMISSION ON SALES).

Mr. HIGHAM: 41.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that there was a distinct understanding between His Majesty's Treasury and the Disposal
Board by which the commission or a share in the sales of the Government stores or property was allowed to be retained by one or more members of the Disposal Board, he will explain why this agreement was made; whether it still exists; and what amount has been retained by members of the Disposal Board under this arrangement to date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): I have been asked to answer this question. No member of the Disposal Board has ever entered into any such arrangement as is suggested in the question.

JERUSALEM (DISTURBANCES).

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the nature and composition of the inquiry that is being held into the recent disturbances in Jerusalem; and whether it is being conducted in public?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been asked to reply. If the hon. and gallant Member will repeat his question, I hope to be in a position to make a statement on this subject to-morrow.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Zionist organisation are represented on this Commission, or whether it is simply a Commission consisting of the military, inquiring into the recent disturbances?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope to be able to make a statement to-morrow, which will in itself only be a provisional one. Communications are still passing between this country and Egypt on this point.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman not even give us the names of the Commissioners?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should not attempt to do so except in response to a question of which notice has been given.

Sir J. D. REES: May I ask what is the immediate interest of the British taxpayer in Jerusalem? Is not his interest as great in Jericho, Jupiter and other like places?

ARMENIA (MANDATE).

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will lay before
the House, or secure the publication of, the correspondence which has passed between the Supreme Council of the Allies and the Council of the League of Nations on the subject of a mandate for Armenia?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The question of the publication of the reply of the Council of the League of Nations to the Supreme Council regarding Armenia is under discussion between those two bodies.

Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that the Supreme Council of the Allies, in all cases, refer to the League of Nations, and, if so, will they refer the question of the sale of our battleships to foreign powers?

Mr. BONAR LAW: They do not refer all questions to the League of Nations.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister when it is intended to introduce the promised legislation for the reform of the Second Chamber?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is impossible to name a date.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it intended to bring in this Bill, if possible, this Session?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We intend, as far as we can, to carry out the proposals in the King's Speech, and that is one of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAN REMO CONFERENCE.

AIRCRAFT MATERIAL (SURRENDER).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if the French Government is satisfied, as the result of the investigations of the Allied Aeronautical Commission, that the provisions of the Peace Treaty with regard to the surrender or destruction of aircraft material have been substantially complied with?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no information as to the views of the French Government on this matter, which is now under consideration by the Supreme Council.

Sir F. HALL: Have not they expressed any opinion with regard to it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: They have expressed no opinion on this matter, so far as I know, but I believe it is being discussed at the Conference.

Colonel LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that this material shall not be destroyed, but handed over intact either to the British or to the Allied Governments?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe it is the intention of the British Government to have the Treaty carried out.

Sir F. HALL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a lot of these camouflaged aeroplanes are at present in Holland, and does he understand how they got there?

Mr. BILLING: Will the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, that it is the Government's intention to have the Treaty carried out, be given full publicity in the country?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no need of that. There has never been any doubt about it.

Colonel LOWTHER: Will violations of the Treaty with Germany be condoned, as they have been during the last year? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Germans will fulfil their obligations with regard to giving coal to France, surrender of their ships, and so on?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That kind of question cannot be dealt with by question and answer. The whole subject of the extent to which it is possible in a given time to carry out the obligations of the Treaty must be considered otherwise than by question and answer.

PEACE TREATY (AMENDMENT).

Captain W. BENN: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing any Amendment of the Peace Treaty proposed by the Government to the Allies?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As no Amendments have been proposed by the Government, the question does not arise.

PASSPORTS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether advantage could be taken of the Confer-
ence now sitting at San Remo by submitting a suggestion that the present is an appropriate time for dispensing with the necessity of the formality of a visé or endorsement on properly executed passports carried by citizens of the Allied Powers when travelling between the respective countries represented at the Conference?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is not practicable to raise this question now before the Conference at San Remo, whose time is fully taken up with more urgent questions requiring immediate decisions.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Considering the many thousands of valuable hours wasted by travelling business men, could not the question be raised at some future time through the representatives of this country in the Allied nations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That will be very carefully considered.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the Government approaching the French Government on the matter, and does it propose to have any regard at all to the views expressed in this House?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Opinions expressed in this House have a very great effect on the passport system.

Mr. MILLS: How soon are we going to revert to pre-War conditions and freedom for citizens, and at the same time obtain some degree of economy in dismissing this staff, who are kept for the purpose of issuing passports?

Sir S. HOARE: Does my hon. Friend remember that a week ago he told me he was considering the advisability of appointing a Committee on this subject? Has he not come to any decision yet?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No; in the absence of the Secretary of State I am not able to pursue the matter.

Sir S. HOARE: Will my right hon. Friend be able to give me an answer next Monday?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will endeavour to do so.

NEAR EASTERN QUESTIONS.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether the questions of Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia have
been, or will be, discussed at the conference at San Remo; and, if so, whether any decision has yet been reached as to their future political status?

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 79.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken to bring about an agreement between the Emir Feisul and representatives of the Jewish people concerning the future of Palestine?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Undoubtedly the questions of Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia have been under discussion at San Remo, but I am not at the moment in a position to make any further statement.

Lord R. CECIL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the statement made in the newspapers this morning is accurate, and whether it is the continued policy of the Government to allow information to this House to be conveyed only through the newspapers?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not possible to get some statement from the Government?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that there is no truth in the statement communicated to the Press, that the mandate for Syria has been conferred on France, and that for Palestine and Mesopotamia on Great Britain?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think my hon. Friend ought to assume that, but I would prefer that he should not put any further question on this matter until we have the official information from San Remo.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask when the House may expect that statement?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should think in the course of a day or two, but I cannot answer definitely.

Mr. PALMER: Is there any truth in the statement that Palestine has been given back to the Jews?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to answer a Private Notice question to-morrow on this subject?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I could not say that for certain, but certainly the information will be forthcoming in a few days.

Sir W. JOYNSON HICKS: Would the hon. Gentleman telegraph to San Remo asking if these statements are true or not?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will certainly do that.

ARMENIA AND AZERBAIDJAN (BOUNDARIES).

Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: 78.
asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the uncertainty of the boundaries of Armenia and Azerbaidjan is the cause of repeated conflicts for which each side is blamed in turn, and whether His Majesty's Government will secure an early delimitation of those boundaries?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; with regard to the second part, it is believed that the Supreme Council have decided the boundaries of Armenia at their meetings at San Remo.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman throw any light on the report in the Press that this matter has been referred to President Wilson by the Supreme Council?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No. I cannot confirm that.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will my hon. Friend inquire why news of that sort is allowed to leak out without either this House or the Government being informed?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member (Mr. Harmsworth) has plenty to do without supervising what appears in the newspapers.

PALESTINE (ADMINISTRATIVE POSTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 80.
I beg on behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Malone) to ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken to select for any of the administrative posts in Palestine men who are Jews or of Jewish extraction?

Mr. PALMER: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it is correct to describe as an hon. and gallant Member of this House one who has ceased to hold his Majesty's Commission?

Mr. SPEAKER: If he puts his name down as being a Lieut.-Colonel I should certainly refer to him as gallant.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When an officer has held His Majesty's commission during the War, and has been in action with the enemy on repeated occasions, is he not entitled to keep the courtesy title of gallant in this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member describes himself upon his question as being a Lieut.-Colonel, presumably he is a Lieut.-Colonel. That being so, the House would naturally refer to him as gallant.

Several hon. Members rose.

Mr. SPEAKER: Any further points of Order must be raised at the conclusion of questions.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been asked to reply. The administration in Palestine is military, and the posts are filled from personnel drawn from the Egyptian Expeditionary Force. This personnel is naturally of different religious denominations. It is anticipated that the military administration will remain until the ultimate settlement of Palestine is decided by the Peace Conference, when civil administration will take its place. In the meanwhile the names of certain men who are Jews or of Jewish extraction are under consideration for employment in the latter administration.

ANTI-DUMPING BILL

Captain W. BENN: 51.
asked the Prime Minister to state when the Anti-Dumping Bill will be introduced.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Captain BENN: Does the Government adhere to its intention to introduce such a measure in this Session?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir, it does.

MAY-DAY CELEBRATIONS.

Mr. W. THORNE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that in consequence of the 1st of May falling on a Saturday a very large number of organised workers in the country have decided to recognise that as a national holiday; if he is aware that a very large number of workmen have notified their
employers that they do not intend to present themselves for work on Saturday, 1st May; and, in consequence of the feeling in the minds of organised workers that the 1st of May is to be regarded as general holiday, whether the Government can see their way clear to advise all employers of labour to shut their workshops on 1st May?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware that a movement in favour of a holiday on 1st May has made some progress recently, but the Government are not prepared to recommend a general holiday on this date.

Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the workpeople of Woolwich Arsenal have notified the Government of their intention not to go to work on that day, and that they have received no reply yet as to whether or not the Government intend to run the factory in its empty state, in view of the fact that the men will not be present?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I know nothing of that.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PROPAGANDA).

Major GLYN: 55.
asked the Lord Privy Seal how many and which Government Departments have publicity, propaganda, or publication Departments which issue, at regular or irregular intervals, notices to the various organs of the Press; what is the cost of these Departments; what use is made, as a rule, of such notices by the newspapers; and whether he will consult with the proprietors of the leading organs of the Press as to whether this newspaper service is of value?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Propaganda in the usually accepted sense is not carried out departmentally. A number of Departments, however, circulate information on some subjects connected with their Department, such as new regulations, dissemination of technical intelligence and kindred subjects, the cost of which is borne by the Department concerned. Experience has shown that considerable value attaches to this work.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how many publications are issued by the Departments?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I could not, but I know there are a very large number.

PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: 56.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Cabinet Committee inquiring into the position of pre-War pensioners has collected any information from the various Government Departments; and whether he will secure a return from each Department showing the number of pensioners receiving a pension of £26 per year or under, £52 per year or under, £104 per year or under, and all over £156 per year, such return in the case of the Board of Education to include retired teachers, and in the case of the Ministry of Health to include retired Poor Law officers, asylum workers, &c.?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Cabinet Committee is obtaining all necessary information bearing on the subject of their inquiry. I do not think that the return suggested by the hon. Member, which would apparently include information as to all superannuated officers of local authorities, would be commensurate in value with the time and labour that would be involved in its preparation.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET PROPOSALS.

INCOME TAX (MARRIED PERSONS).

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 57.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government will pay the expenses of a test case in the Courts in regard to the legality of treating a wife's income as part of her husband's income for purposes of Income Tax?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir. Under the existing law, the legality is, I think, indisputable.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Could the right hon. Gentleman get the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I see no occasion to make further inquiries. The people who are most interested in this matter are wealthy people, and can test it in the Courts if they wish.

Mr. BILLING: Surely the people most penalised are not wealthy people?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The people who would obtain most relief by separate assessment of the incomes of husband and wife are rich people, and not poor people.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a class of people who are very hard hit are naval officers—not rich people?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think they are harder hit than people of similar means in other walks of life. I would remind my Noble and gallant Friend that the rates of pay of naval officers have recently been revised on a very generous scale.

Sir E. CARSON: Is the right hon. Gentlemen not aware that, certainly in the case of junior officers, nearly all the benefit of the increased pay has been taken away by the change in regard to Income Tax?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The Income Tax exemption was, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows, a special War-time exemption, which it was never intended should continue after the War, and it was expressly decided at the time the new increases of pay were made that the special Income Tax exemption should cease.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of making further inquiries in regard to wife and husband? If he does so, I am sure he will find that he is mistaken with regard to the rich people?

DAMASCUS (REPORTED RISING).

Major ENTWISTLE: 67.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the House any information as to the reported rising in Damascus; what is the cause of it; and are any British troops being used there for the purpose of quelling the riot?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Nothing has been heard of any rising in Damascus. The remaining parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: There are no British troops at Damascus, are there?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think not.

OSTEND AND CENTRAL EUROPE (RAILWAY SERVICE).

Sir S. HOARE: 69.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a service of trains has now been arranged between Ostend and Central Europe; and, if so, upon what date the service will commence?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Ambassador at Brussels has forwarded a note from the Belgian Minister of Railways, dated 3rd April, announcing that arrangements have been made for through trains between Ostend and Vienna, to commence running as from 15th April.

Sir S. HOARE: Does that mean that there will be a daily service of trains?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should like notice of that question.

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (LINGUISTIC TESTS).

Sir J D. REES: 70.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will inquire into the linguistic tests exacted in the diplomatic service, in view to ascertaining whether, in fact, they are the highest possible?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Secretary of State is satisfied that the linguistic tests required in connection with the Diplomatic Service are adequate, and is unable to recognise the necessity for the inquiry suggested by my hon. Friend.

Sir J. D. REES: Does the hon. Gentleman think, in view of the importance of these linguistic tests, it is desirable that they should bear some established relation to the tests of the Civil Service Commissioners which are understood and recognised throughout the Empire?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: If the hon. Gentleman has misgivings about these tests, perhaps he will put me in possession of some information on the subject.

Colonel YATE: Is it not a fact that the diplomatic examinations convey no real idea of knowledge of a language?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think that is entirely erroneous.

Captain REDMOND: Is it necessary to pass a test for Welsh?

SCHLESWIG AND FLENSBORG (PLEBISCITE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 71.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Danish Government has at any time made representations to the International Plebiscite Commission asking that the result of the plebiscite in the second zone of Schleswig and Flensborg should be overriden in favour of Denmark?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No such representations have, so far as I am aware, been made.

ALBANIA.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether both the military and diplomatic representatives of Great Britain have been withdrawn from Albania; and, if so, whether they may at once be sent back again so that the presence of impartial witnesses may discourage aggression by the Serb and Greek armies which now threaten the Albanian frontiers?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: There is at present no military or diplomatic representative of His Majesty's Government in Albania, and the appointment of such representatives is not at present in contemplation. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the final settlement of the Albanian question is still occupying the attention of the Supreme Council, who would not allow their decision to be prejudiced by any aggressive action of the nature indicated. I might add that I have no information to show that such action is being undertaken or planned.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the withdrawal of these impartial British witnesses the
Serbs have crossed the Boyana and invaded Albanian territory?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have just said that we have no information on the subject.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: How is the Supreme Council at San Remo or anywhere else to ascertain the wishes of the Albanian people if the British have no communications with the Albanians, but depend upon Serbian sources of information?

MEXICO (BRITISH DIPLOMATIC AGENT).

Major LOWTHER: 75.
asked the Under- Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government has any diplomatic agent accredited to the Mexican Government; if so, what is his rank and status; and, if not, how much longer he means to leave British interests in Mexico unrepresented?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government is represented at Mexico City by a Charge des Archives and a Consul-General.

Mr. W. YOUNG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the whole time we have teen unrepresented in Mexico the United States have been represented there by an Ambassador, and during the late War and during the whole of the time of the political troubles in Mexico, and that consequently British interests have been neglected and greatly prejudiced in that country, where some hundreds of millions of British money is invested; and is he aware of the fact?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put his question down.

Major LOWTHER: 76.
asked the Under- Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any Report from His Britannic Majesty's representative in Mexico regarding recent events in that country; and whether the lives and property of British subjects have been respected by the contending forces?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Reports have been received of risings against the Mexican Government in the States of Sonora, Michoacan, and elsewhere, but
I am not yet in a position to judge the importance of the movement. There is no indication that the lives or property of British subjects have been endangered by the disturbances in question.

KOREA (TRADING FACILITIES).

Mr. HIRST: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the freedom of British subjects to trade through certain open ports in Korea at a fixed tariff will expire in August of this year, in consequence of the action of the Japanese Government in 1910 in abrogating all Korean foreign treaties, and whether it is proposed to take any steps to maintain the continuance of the policy of the open door in Korea after August?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative; the right of Japan to adjust the Customs tariff in Korea after a. period of 10 years from 29th August, 1910, having been accepted by His Majesty's Government at the time of annexation.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

TIMBER.

Captain R. TERRELL: 82.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he is aware that wholesale timber-cutting is still in progress, apparently on Government account, in the woods near Watlington, Oxfordshire; whether there is any need for this wholesale felling of trees now that the War is ended; and whether, in the interest of preserving so much of our woods-as now remain, he will have the matter investigated at once?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Timber being felled by the Government near Watlington was purchased standing before the Armistice by the Board of Trade Timber Supply Department, and is in process of being cleared in accordance with the terms of the contract under which it was-purchased from the landowner.

Mr. MILLS: Will the hon. Member consider the advisability of dealing with the
afforestation of this country, and at the same time help to solve the problem of unemployment?

PLOUGHED PASTURE LAND.

Mr. HURD: 83.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether tenants of agricultural holdings who have depreciated the value thereof by ploughing up permanent pasture at the instance of a County War Agricultural Committee are liable at the termination of their tenancy to recompense the landlord for the value of the stored-up fertility thereby taken out of the land; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to remove the penalty so held over the heads of tenants in the way of indemnifying them against such claims or otherwise?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Section 2 of the Courts (Emergency) Powers Act, 1917, relieves a tenant who breaks up pasture under compulsory directions issued under the Defence of the Realm Regulations from liability for any breach of his contract of tenancy which is attributable to compliance with such directions.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that not 30 per cent. of the questions were reached to-day, and that nearly 30 per cent. of the questions which were asked were asked by proxy, how many questions is it in order for an hon. Member to ask by proxy? I am referring specially to questions asked on the Labour Benches.

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members on the Labour Benches are not by any means the only persons who ask questions by proxy. The House has always accepted this, and I do not see that I have any authority to interfere with it of my own initiative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether any protection is possible against questions being put by hon. Members throwing doubts on the character and veracity of other hon. Members? I refer particularly to the question put by the hon. Member for the Wrekin (Mr. Palmer) against the hon. Member for East Leyton (Lieut.-
Colonel Malone), who is not here, and whether this is not against the whole spirit of the House; and is there any means of giving protection to hon. Members in their absence?

Mr. PALMER: May I respectfully ask your opinion on this point? I have heard my hon. Friend who has just sat down refer more than once to the hon. Member who has recently left the Navy as "hon. and gallant." Knowing as we do how much we value in this House the title of "gallant," I asked quite seriously, with no desire to cast any reflection on the hon. Member, whether an hon. Gentleman is entitled to apply the term "gallant" to the hon. Member (Lieut.-Colonel Malone)?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether an officer who has been decorated for gallantry with the Military Cross is entitled by courtesy to be addressed as "gallant"?

Mr. MacVEAGH: May I respectfully submit that there are many Members on the Government Bench who enjoy military titles not one of whom ever saw a shot fired?

Mr. SPEAKER: I assumed that the questions put by the hon. Member for the Wrekin were genuine bonâ fide questions, and I answered accordingly. I am not going to undertake—it is no part of my business—to say whether an hon. Member is entitled to describe himself as being a captain or a colonel or a commander or anything else. That is entirely a matter of Military, Naval, and Air discipline, and it rests completely with the authority to whom he is or has been subject.

Mr. DEVLIN: Would it not be a matter which would expedite considerably the business of the House and the simplicity of our discussion if we were to drop all those expressions of "honourable and gallant" and "right honourable" and call each other by our names?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that that would be very undesirable. The courtesy implied in the terms which have been in use in this House for many centuries makes it desirable to retain them.

4.0 P.M.

Brigadier-General CROFT: May I ask whether there is any limit to the number
of questions which hon. Members are permitted to ask on behalf of other hon. Members, and whether, if the custom be carried further, it will not result in two or three Members being here to ask questions for a large number of other hon. Members? Has your attention been called to the fact that this is the sixth time this Session that questions addressed to the Minister of Munitions have not been reached? Cannot something be done to see that a day is given to questions addresed to the Minister of Munitions, so that we can have answered the questions which are of vital importance to the country?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is putting a number of questions to me, and I do not know whether I shall be able to deal with them all. With regard to the last question, that is not a matter for me. It is a matter for arrangement between the hon. and gallant Member and the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, who arranges the order in which questions stand upon the Paper. With regard to the question whether hon. Members are entitled to ask questions on behalf of other hon. Members, of course, if there were any abuse of that rule, the House probably would feel that the time had come when there should be some limit to the practice. At present I am not able to say that the rule has been abused. There are reasons, especially on Monday, why hon. Members should be allowed to ask questions on behalf of other hon. Members.

Brigadier-General CROFT: May I ask whether you have considered the fact that very nearly fifty per cent. of the questions to-day have been asked in that way?

Mr. WATERSON: Would not the questions to the Minister of Munitions have been reached had there not been so many supplementary questions from one hon. Member?

Mr. BILLING: Is not some privilege going to be given to hon. Members who take the trouble to attend this House, in contradistinction to those who disgrace it by their absence?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Would it not be better to disgrace the House by one's absence rather than by one's presence?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: With regard to the rule being abused by too many questions being asked by proxy, would it not be possible, with a view of getting verbal answers, to change the procedure, seeing it has been already changed by cutting the number of questions hon. Members are entitled to ask down to three, by setting up a new rule requiring hon. Members to ask their own questions?

Mr. SPEAKER: Would the House be prepared to accept this proposal? On going through questions the first time, hon. Members should not be allowed to ask questions on behalf of others—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"]—will the House allow me to finish? After all those who are present have asked their questions. Then on going through the questions a second time, any hon. Member might ask questions on behalf of other hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" "No!" and "Agreed."]

Mr. MacVEAGH: I wish respectfully to ask you whether you have the slightest reason to believe that the privilege of hon. Members in this respect has been abused by any section?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already said that I have no such reason.

Mr. MILLS: If we reach a stage when questions are automatically cut off, can they not automatically appear as the first questions the next day?

Mr. SPEAKER: That would upset the whole order for the rest of the week. Questions are all arranged in particular-order day after day. I think the suggestion that I have thrown out, on the whole, seems acceptable to the House.

Mr. HOGGE: Does it mean that when you reach a quarter to four, you will go back? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO! "] I am asking Mr. SPEAKER the question. I am perfectly willing to adopt the arrangement if it means that at a quarter to four, or whatever time you determine, it is necessary to go back to No. 1, and that you will then call all that remain before you finish questions.

Mr. SPEAKER: When I reach the end of questions, if there be any time, I shall then go back, and call upon all those hon. Members who did not respond the first time.

Mr. HOGGE: If there were no time, you would not call those questions?

Mr. SPEAKER: No.

BILLS PRESENTED.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SCOTCH FISHING BOATS) BILL,

"to provide for the extension to Scotland of Part IV. of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894," presented by Sir ROBERT HORNE; supported by Mr. Munro, Mr. Bridgeman, and Colonel Leslie Wilson; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

BLIND PERSONS BILL,

"to promote the welfare of Blind Persons," presented by Dr. ADDISON; supported by Mr. Munro; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NO. 2) BILL,

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 83.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 83.]

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY. [7TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. J. H. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1920–21 [PROGRESS].

COLONIAL OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £169,810, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant in Aid and other Expenses connected with Oversea Settlement."—[NOTE.—£475,000 7 has been voted on account.]

Sir J. D. REES: I crave the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, in order to call attention to the affairs of a distant and deserving colony, namely, Nyasaland. I do not really wish to reduce the salary which my hon. and gallant Friend so well earns, and I am sorry to trouble him at this time, when he is suffering. The Governor of Nyasaland in his recent address to his Council referred to the necessity for extra taxation for various projects, including railways. If this extra taxation be required for the purpose of railway extension to Lake Nyasa from the centre of Nyasaland, it would be far more patiently borne by those who have to pay it if the railway took a route which was acceptable to commercial opinion in the colony. My hon. and gallant Friend and his advisers have decided upon a route which, rightly or wrongly, and I think rightly, commercial opinion in the colony condemns. It must be obvious, if new taxes, including taxes upon exports of raw material, are to be imposed, that they would be far more readily accepted if the line took the route which runs to the west, instead of the route adopted which runs to the east, but in imposing export duties on raw produce from Nyasaland for this and other purposes, I cannot help thinking that the colonial authorities have practically adopted a rather new policy. As a matter of fact, at a time like the present, one of the chief
exports of Nyasaland, namely, cotton, is in the utmost demand for the purpose of carrying on that industry in this country, which comes only second to agriculture. Therefore, it is a matter of no little importance. If my hon. and gallant Friend tells me that there is a precedent for this impost in the tax recently imposed upon the export of cotton from Egypt, I would recall the fact that that was done in view of the existence of something like famine in a part of Egypt, whereas, happily, those calamitous circumstances are absent in Nyasaland.
My hon. and gallant Friend will be already well posted in the matter, because he has courteously and kindly attended to representations that I have made to him outside this House, but I want him to ask the Governor of Nyassaland to give proof of his desire, and to give effect to the desire of the Colonial Office, that the growth and export of cotton should increase, by granting land to those who want it for cotton cultivation upon easy and convenient terms. The Governor has only been prepared to give land to those who own a great deal of that which is not suitable for cotton cultivation upon the exchange of one acre for two acres. The Government have control of most of the land that is suitable for cotton cultivation, and I ask my hon. and gallant Friend, in the first place, to do that which I am sure he will do, because he has always been exceedingly obliging and kind: I ask him to ask the Governor to revise his outlook in this respect and to show the utmost alacrity, anxiety, and earnestness to meet those who are prepared to find the capital for the production of this all-important raw material, instead, I will not say of making difficulties, but regarding as insuperable difficulties which we who are interested in this matter think are by no means insuperable.
Among the export duties to which I have referred is one imposed upon tobacco. At the present moment, when an extra tax is to be put upon Havana cigars, it becomes more than ever desirable—it was always desirable—that British grown tobacco should be encouraged in every possible way. Here we have a famous product of Nyassaland, excellent tobacco smoked by our sailors, who are, I believe, the best possible judges of tobacco—you never see them without pipes in their mouths, and they
like Nyassaland tobacco—and here is an opportunity for developing a British grown product, and yet at a time like this along comes an export duty of two pence upon it. I will not trouble my hon. and gallant Friend with all the technicalities with which I might bombard him again as regards brights and darks, but for various reasons connected with the growth of tobacco, and the varying quantities of different qualities which are produced, the rebate given to Colonial grown tobacco is perfectly useless in the case of Nyasaland. It is only operative in regard to a very small fraction of the output, and I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to remember that fact. I ask him also to remember that the companies doing business in Nyasaland are paying 6s. 6d. Income Tax and are going to pay 60 per cent. Excess Profits Duty and this tax. The question is whether anything will be left when they have paid everything demanded from them. At any rate, if the Secretary of State intended to sanction, as he has sanctioned, a new impost of this character, I should have thought that warning would have been desirable, so that those concerned might have made arrangements to cut their coat according to the cloth.
There is the fact also that this tobacco, notoriously, is held up for months together. At this moment there are vast quantities of unsold tobacco in this country. It has been around the coast seeking some place at which it might be landed. It has subsequently when finally landed remained unsold because under the present conditions of the market it will not sell. Therefore I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend, not only that warning should have been given, but that if this tax is to be imposed it should not be paid until the money is realised by the sale of the raw products. Transport expenses are exceedingly high, almost prohibitive, when you "deal with products from the heart of Central Africa. That is another objection. I will also point out that no tax should be levied which will favour the native grower as against the British grower, or favour the British grower against the native grower. I do not quite understand why the native of Nyasaland should be called upon to pay a tax of this sort on tobacco which he grows on his own land and in his. own country. I ask the hon. and
gallant Gentleman also to remember that the crop for 1920 is a very bad one, and that the Chamber of Commerce and commercial opinion generally are bitterly opposed to the impost. For myself, I would reserve even greater condemnation for the tax on the production of cotton, because at the present time we are crying out for cotton in the United Kingdom.
Next, I come to an ordinance, lately published, to which very serious objection is taken. That is the Native Foodstuffs Ordinance. Under the Native Foodstuffs Ordinance of 1912, the Government had power to prohibit export in times of scarcity. Why now is it necessary to take power to control the crop for the purpose of public improvements or for any purposes affecting the public interest? I am very glad that there are certain projects for developing Nyasaland and Central Africa by means of railways, and that these projects are well on the way to completion; but in regard to this arbitrary interference with the growth and sale and the price of foodstuffs in time of peace, I do not understand why it should be necessary, for the purpose of remunerating labour, which I presume it is, for the construction of those railways. I am most anxious that the railway should be constructed. Will my hon. Friend tell me whether it really is on that account that this new and drastic interference with trade is contemplated? Is the Government to fix a price for maize, for instance? It is the staple of the country. Why not leave this matter to be settled, since famine happily does not prevail, by the ordinary laws of supply and demand, to which I wish with all my heart we could get back in this country as a remedy for all the economic difficulties from which we suffer? Why should not the native sell his maize at his own price? I am not one of those who think, like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), that while the Englishman at home will not harm a fly the Englishman abroad will always kill a native. I think our government in that country has been an enormous advantage to the natives. It has increased their wages—not doubled them but quintupled them. Though I am far, indeed, from having any sympathy with bodies like the Aborigines Protection Society, who are always protecting in ignorance those who have sufficient knowledge to protect themselves, nevertheless I think it is desirable that in regard to the growing and selling of agricultural products, those who own
them and grow them should sell them and settle the price for themselves.
It should be remembered that the expenses of production in Nyasaland have risen by 300 per cent. or 400 per cent., and that the European planters, and others who have invested money there, find it extremely difficult to reap the profits which it might be assumed would be easily reaped in a country where labour is still cheap, compared with what it is in this country. If the Government at home are preaching on all occasions, as they rightly are, that what we want is production, production and production, let my hon. Friend be very careful not to interfere with the production of our subsidiary possessions by putting a tax on the export of raw materials. I submit, further, that this new policy is extremely harmful to the settlement of soldiers upon the land—a most desirable measure from the point of view of the development of our colonies, and desirable in the interests of the gallant soldiers themselves. The Governor of Nyasaland has said that in order to balance his Budget, or in order, rather, to provide resources, he wanted £97,000. I do not quite know why he wants so much, because he apparently had a surplus of £100,000 last year. Why was it necessary to impose these extra taxes, and to impose them straight away before there was time for anyone who represented the other side to put forward the interests of the European planters and the native planters, and the interests of capital and labour?
I come now to deal with another country, Ceylon, of which agriculture is the father and mother. The Governor of Ceylon is in this country now to confer with the Colonial Office regarding the framing of a new and more popular constitution for Ceylon. I have heard questions asked in the House expressing the hope that the details of this new constitution will be submitted to the House for consideration before they are finally passed. I certainly hope nothing of the sort will be done. I think it would be enough if my hon. Friend takes an opportunity of telling the House the main features of the measure, and if those who are unacquainted with Ceylon, which I think includes almost everyone in this House, will refrain from criticisms which are mischievous and really get in the way of those who are as anxious to liberalise, in
a reasonable manner, the constitution of Ceylon as any hon. Gentleman whose zeal for reform so far outruns his discretion as to impel him to criticise that of which he has no sort of understanding. The Governor of Ceylon, Sir William Manning, is a very distinguished officer. Hon. Members will remember how all of us here approved his discreet and capable action when in charge of Somaliland. He was Governor there, and went to Nyasaland, where he was also most successful. From there he went to Jamaica, where again he succeeded, and where, if I may say so, his successor has not been nearly so successful—so much so that I think my hon. Friend would not lose time in considering that question. We have in Sir William Manning an extremely capable man, who has shown himself, throughout a distinguished career, most capable of dealing with the natives of countries other than his own. He has always proved a most successful administrator, and I earnestly hope that the zeal for reform, which so frequently outruns discretion, will not interfere with the settlement and the liberalisation of the Ceylon constitution.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: I wish to deal with a subject affecting a colony very close to that which has been referred to by the hon. Baronet who has just spoken. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary is suffering from a temporary disability, and I extend to him my sympathy. The Committee are aware, I think, that the Government decided recently to change the currency system in the East African Protectorate, in Uganda, and in the country now known as the Tanganyika Territory. The Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper I have tabled with no desire to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but merely because I am anxious to have an opportunity of ventilating what I feel to be the real prejudice being suffered by the Protectorate of East Africa and Uganda. The decision of the Government is to substitute for a rupee, which had a legal value of 1s. 4d., a florin of 2s. At the same time it has been decided, as the Under-Secretary informed me in answer to a question, that for the repayment of debts and contracts which were incurred in rupees, the new florin is to rank as the rupee. This decision has been received with amazement and consternation by the leading planters, settlers and
producers in East Africa, and I confess I share that amazement. It appears to me to be both unjust and arbitrary. It is unjust because it increases the indebtedness of every producer by 50 per cent., and inflicts permanent injury, as I think, upon their future financial prospects. It is arbitrary because it seems to me to follow no fixed principle, and it is certainly opposed to reason. I am animated in this question mainly by anxiety to say what I can in the interests of the ex-soldier settlers who have been induced to proceed to East Africa by means of what, in effect, though not, I am sure, in intention, for I make no charge against the Under-Secretary or his Department, amounts to misrepresentation on the part of the Government. Nor can I forget the pre-War settlers who sprang to arms, when war came, in the cause of liberty, and confided their all to the care of justice. It is in their interest, too, that I speak and also in that of the indigenous native. I desire also to refer to the production of raw material and the necessity of doing everything we can to foster it in these territories.
The history of the currency question in East Africa is but brief. The existing system drifted in. It was born in a fit of absence of mind. Like Topsy, it "growed." Originally there was a system of barter, though you found all manner of different coins in use on the coast of East Africa. Gradually, with the opening of the Uganda Railway, the Indian rupee came more and more into the country, and when the Indian troops were there they came to be paid in rupees, and it became increasingly a matter of convenience to use the Indian rupee in East Africa. An Order in Council of 1898 made the silver rupee of British India the standard coin of the East African Protectorate. There was no special virtue in that rupee, it was merely a matter of convenience. The natives had no special love for it. An hon. Member of this House tells me that 20 years ago the natives used to refuse the silver rupee and preferred to be paid in the copper coinage of the country. Obviously it was not to the interest of the settlers to have the rupee. They sold their goods in a sterling market and they were continually arguing that sterling coinage should be introduced into the country, but those representations were disregarded. The next step was in 1905 when, following the
example of the Government of India, an Order in Council made the sovereign legal tender in the East African Protectorate at rupees 15 to the sovereign. It has been supposed that the intention of the Order in Council was to tie the rupee to the pound sterling, of which the sovereign was then the representative and to place the rupee on a gold or sterling basis which were then identical. The gold sovereign was an extremely convenient standard to adopt. It was an ideal monetary unit, uniform in time and place, and by linking up the fickle rupee to the gold sovereign you would have far greater uniformity than you could otherwise obtain.

Sir F. BANBURY: But you cannot get a sovereign anywhere.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: I am talking of 1905. The value of the rupee tended in those days downwards. But the rupee at 1s. 4d. retained its value by being linked up with the gold sovereign. I have the best authority for believing that in point of fact those who framed the 1905 Order in Council were not considering these questions at all, but were merely considering the question of convenience, and, as in the case of their predecessors, drifting once more in their policy. I am not criticising the Under-Secretary's Department or those who framed the Order. They had no considerations in regard to the rupee except of convenience. What they were out to do, I understand, was by linking the rupee with the sovereign to get a convenient currency both of higher as well as lower amounts. Since 1905, and until the rupee began to go up in the course of the War, every contract in East Africa has been made on the basis of 15 rupees to the sovereign, or, what was the same thing, to the pound sterling. That was the law enforced by the courts. Every debt, purchase of land, loan, sale, payment, in fact every industrial financial or commercial transaction has been made in the confidence that 15 rupees went to the pound sterling. I may add that every settler, though he did his business in rupees, thought in sterling. The Government itself to this day keeps all its accounts and frames its Estimates, its Budget, and brings in its Finance Bills, and transacts all its financial business in that unit of value, the pound sterling. To-day I noticed in the papers that came from
East Africa last week, advertisements of the sale of land in sterling, and thex East African Currency Board presents its monthly statement in sterling, and all the salaries of the officials whose contracts were made in sterling, are paid in rupees, 15 to the pound. So that whatever was the intention in 1905, in effect the currency law of that date established a gold or sterling standard on the basis of 15 rupees to the pound sterling or 1s. 4d. to the rupee.
It is within the common knowledge of the Committee that during the War the price of silver rose owing to disturbances in Mexico and other causes. I think it should have been possible, and I do not say this in any spirit of criticism, to have forseen what was certain to happen. The rupee had a token value of 10d. before the War, and as silver appreciated tended to approach the exchange value of 1s. 4d. It was apparent that the time would come when the metallic value of the rupee would exceed the token value and pass the limit of 1s. 4d. In August, 1917, the rupee was quoted for the first time at a price of 1s. 5d. The reason was that you had withdrawn the gold sovereign and you did not do what you did in this country, namely, circulate a Treasury Note as the equivalent. I think that should have been done. At any rate, the result was that the rupee rose to 1s. 5d. When it arose to 1s. 5d. some immediate action was necessary in order to maintain the existing ratio to the pound sterling at 1s. 4d. When a similar difficulty arose in the United Kingdom the ratio of the shilling to the pound was not altered, but a new coinage was sanctioned, and the pound note was introduced, measures which had the effect of stabilising the shilling. The remedy in East Africa was, as I think, equally obvious, and the Government ought in 1917 to have replaced the rupee by a new token of less fineness and made a Treasury pound note legal tender at the fixed ratio of 1s. 4d., or 15 rupees to the pound sterling. I must here pause to say that this failure of the Government in 1917 to take that action, with the necessary subsidiary steps in regard to melting coins, and so forth, is the sole and entire cause of all the trouble that has since arisen. Could we have taken similar action there as in this country, the difficulties of which the settlers in
East Africa are to-day complaining would not have existed. The disastrous consequences have arisen, therefore, as I think, from a failure to act. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but she is too often herself the child of procrastination, and in this case the necessity in which the settlers in East Africa find themselves is due to that cause.
The policy of settling ex-soldiers in East Africa was under consideration for the first time in 1916, and a memorandum was then prepared asking for the amount of land available, the amount of capital required to purchase, equip and develop estates, and also showing the probable return on capital and the necessary amount that must be expended by the Government in development of roads, harbours, etc. In April, 1918, the rupee had risen to eighteenpence, and the East African Government were duly warned by the managers of a bank which operates in East Africa of the very serious consequences which would result, because I need not tell the Committee that the whole of these calculations in regard to capital required were vitiated as the rupee rose. In May, 1919, the Convention of Associations, which is a sort of miniature parliament of trade and commerce in East Africa, pressed very strongly upon the Government the desperate position in which producers would find themselves if nothing was done, but all that time nothing was done, though the Government still proceeded with their settlement scheme. Lands were offered at a price calculated on a sterling basis, but expressed in rupees at the old rate of fifteen to the pound. Lectures were given to these ex-soldiers explaining the conditions in East Africa, and, I understand, on an assurance received from the Under-Secretary himself, they were assured that steps were being taken to recover the control of the currency, and applicants were advised when the rupee stood at 1s. 8d. not to remit their capital at that price, but to wait until something was done to re-establish control over the rupee.
So matters went on during 1919, but in August of that year the rupee rose to 1s. 10d., and then my hon. and gallant Friend wrote, "We are fully alive to the critical position created by the further rise in the rupee to 1s. 10d., but we cannot move until the Governor replies"—
I understand to certain representations that had been made. When the rupee was at 1s. 10d. the Colonial Office were writing, therefore, that they were fully alive to the critical position created by that rise, and were presumably anxious to do away with the consequences of inaction. In the end of 1919 the rupee rose to 2s., and a scheme on the lines that I have suggested was pressed on the Colonial Office. I am not sure of this, but I believe my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary himself was at that date rather favourably disposed towards that proposal. At any rate, it was approved by the Convention of Associations, and, I believe, by the Governor of East Africa, and I am not sure, but I think by the Governor of the neighbouring protectorate. In November, 1919, the Under-Secretary himself saw a deputation and gave hope of early relief, and by so doing—I do not know whether he gave any promise, and I do not wish to misrepresent him—but by the hopes he aroused he actually deterred the soldier settlers from remitting further funds at the rate of 2s. It is at that time, November, 1919, that a sudden change seemed to come over the scene, and other interests seem to have intervened. I do not know what those interests are. I have heard them described as the Hidden Hand, but I am not sure exactly what they are. At any rate, the Colonial Office, which then apparently had the intention of stabilising the rupee at 1s. 4d., hesitated and were lost. The rupee, on the other hand, did not hesitate but promptly went up to 2s. 4d.
Since then events have moved fast. The Government of India have taken certain steps, which I do not think I need go into, but as a result of those steps the value of the rupee rushed up to 2s. 9½d., I think. The purchasing power of the rupee in East Africa had not increased, and the effect of the rupee at 2s. 9d. was that the local cost of production in East Africa was raised by 100 per cent. That was a situation which I am advised spelt almost immediate ruin to the producer, on whose prosperity obviously depends the prosperity of the whole community. There were two courses then open to the Government—and I am now talking of very recent history. Either they might have followed the example of the Government of India and frankly adopted a gold standard, or they might have followed
wholly the example of Great Britain which, as I have said, already was adopting a new token of less fineness, which they did, and making the pound sterling in the form of Treasury notes legal tender, which they also did, but also, as I think, they might have followed this country still further and retained the legal relation between the token subsidiary coinage and the pound sterling on the pre-war basis. The Government accepted neither alternative. They followed Great Britain as regards the new token and the Treasury notes, but they have altered the legal relation between the token silver and the pound sterling from 15 rupees to the pound sterling to 10 rupees to the pound sterling. I cannot believe that the full effects of that action have really been thought out to the last. Two out of the three measures lately taken might have been taken at any time in the past four years, but to ease the difficult situation which has arisen, due to neglect to take the action they might have taken, they have now substituted the 2s. florin for the 1s. 4d. rupee in every relation of commerce and industry, with the disastrous results to the producer which I have indicated.

5.0 P.M.

I should like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend what caused him at that time to shift his ground, and what justification there is for putting the soldier settler in East Africa in a worse position than, for example, the smallholder in this country. In East Africa the effect on the soldier settler is to add this permanent 50 per cent, on his cost of production and to increase the debtor's burden by the same, whilst we all know in this country precisely the opposite policy has been adopted of easing the burden as far as possible on the debtor interest. I would like to give one or two practical examples of the effect of this policy in East Africa. An officer friend of mine was under agreement to invest a fixed sum, stated in rupees, of which a balance of some 30,000 rupees remained to be paid. The money was urgently required, and at the old exchange it should have cost him £2,000. At the time he remitted, which was on St. Valentine's Day, it cost him over £3,500, a very large increase indeed, due, as I say, solely to the Government not taking the action which has now been taken at an earlier date. He did not regard that, I need hardly say, as a very pleasant Valentine.
I have details of a company engaged in East Africa which is paying annually in exchange, due solely to the extra cost of the rupee, no less than 10 per cent. on its issued capital. Then in the neighbouring colony of Uganda they complain with equal bitterness. I have extracts from a Report of the Uganda Development Commission—a Commission which consisted partly of commercial people and partly of Government officials. I will quote from a report printed as late as March 20. They say:
We are constrained to emphasise the fact that existing industries are gravely threatened by the present rate of exchange. The planting industry, a valuable asset both to the Empire and the Protectorate, is in existing circumstances unlikely to continue and may possibly have to be abandoned. … Furthermore, it cannot be expected that capital, sorely needed, will be attracted to the country while the loss on exchange is some 40 per cent. We urge, therefore, that the matter should be dealt with at the earliest possible date, as the situation constitutes a menace to the country's future.
That, on the authority of officials and producers in a neighbouring country, shows clearly that they have identical interests and identical opinions upon this. I should like to ask the Committee to consider what are the interests of those whose indebtedness has been increasd by 50 per cent. They are first of all the pre-War settlers. These men, as I have said, came to arms when called. They left their farms to deteriorate, their credit naturally in their business is strained and their debts naturally increased through war service, and the only war bonus they get from my hon. Friend is this increase of their indebtedness by 50 per cent. Then there are the ex-service settlers. Their capital has been depleted through this failure to act on the part of the Government. Their cost of production has increased and their profits, calculated on the old basis of the 1s. 4d. rupee, are of course at the present rate wholly illusory. Their position seems quite hopeless. Those men were granted land as a reward for military service, and the only return is that their productive efficiency, through the currency system adopted by the Government, has been affected to an extent which is really equivalent to a permanent disability of 50 per cent. I have heard it stated that there is a suggestion of reducing the rent of the farms, but that is
surely only a palliative. The ex-soldier settler in the end will pay a little less for what must be eventual ruin. The interest of the indigenous native is identical. It depends on the prosperity of the farmer.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It depends on his wage being a good wage instead of a bad wage.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: It depends on production and the prosperity of the settler, and as an independent producer he is concerned with sterling prices just as the white man is. There are other interests which might be mentioned. There are the missionary societies and their funds raised in this country. But the other interest I want to mention, which is really the important one, is the interest of the Government itself. I think the Government is committed to a policy of railroad, harbour and road construction. Loans must be raised, and they must be raised in sterling. The expenditure on those loans must necessarily be more than half local, and it is easy to see that if the amount of the loan is £6,000,000, £1,000,000 can be very easily lost in exchange. Those are the debtor interests, on whom this burden is to be put permanently. What are the creditor interests on the other side? I suppose the banks; but surely far-sighted policy must realise that their real interest is in developing the resources of the country. There is another class—the Indian residents—a very small number of people, I believe, but who have in their hands a great deal of the wholesale and retail trade of the country. I am told they have done extremely well out of the War. I understand they have made large fortunes out of the War, and that when the white man went to the front, and when the indigenous native, in large numbers, was recruited and fought for the Empire of which he forms part, the members of this small coterie of Indians made no contribution at all in personal service to the needs of the Empire.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Indians fought very well.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: I am talking of those in East Africa, and certainly not of those in India. My observations are wholly directed to East Africa.
I am speaking now in regard to a very small number of persons domiciled in East Africa whose interests are in East Africa, where they are bagmen, and who will return to India as soon as they have made a sufficiency out of the country. The last interest is that of the money-lenders in India. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend wants me to elaborate that. I suppose the money-lending interest in India needs justice, but I do not think it is a very important interest that deserves much consideration. The proposal I make is that these interests, such as they are, can be compensated, and ought to be compensated, and, though it is not my province, I would indicate a means by which they could be compensated. I will take for granted the value of this production to the Empire. They grow cotton and could grow more. It is a country six times the size of Great Britain. The fertility of its soil is wonderful. It has every variety of climate, a satisfactory rainfall, and is capable of development. It grows already wheat, cotton, sugar, flax and fibre of very great importance to this country, because of the binder twine. Of the 18,000 tons used in this country in 1918, 10,000 tons, I believe, was derived from East Africa.

Sir F. BANBURY: We paid a very good price for it, too—three times as much as before the War.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: All that is needed is capital, enterprise and a fair chance for these settlers. What is the remedy? I think, myself, that it is possible in the case of every estimate and every contract which was made on the basis of the 1s. 4d. rupee, to go back to that basis. It is the Government's inaction that has created the position which is disastrous to the producers' interests, and which is temporarily only advantageous to the trading and the banking interests. Half the cost of this Government inaction has been saddled on the producers for all time, and they have, by their decision, endowed the other interests with half the unearned increment due to the appreciation of the rupee. I cordially applaud the steps which the Government has already taken in the issue of the £1 note and the new currency. That is all to the good, though belated, and I do submit that, as a simple act of justice, the position of the rupee should be restored to the status quo—15 to the £ sterling—from which it should never have been
allowed to move. The funds for compensating the creditor interests which would in any way suffer through the rupee reverting to the 1s. 4d. value—and the period of time for which this would happen would be very short compared with the period of time during which the debtor interest has already been suffering—can be found very easily. If you turn to the currency note reserve you will find that there is a deficit of £240,000, and, calculated on the 1s. 4d. basis, there will be a surplus of £42,000. That would be available for distribution. Then there is the profit on the redemption of the rupee stock. In the same return I notice there are 250,000 rupees in reserve. Redeemed at 1s. 4d. you have a very large sum involved there. I have mentioned already the Loan expenditure on works. You could probably make an effective saving of at least £500,000.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On wages?

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: I have information that there has been no effect at all in the way my hon. and gallant Friend indicates. Wages have not been altered to the detriment of these people through any action that has been taken in bringing the rupee from the 2s. 9d. level to the 2s. level, and it certainly cannot be anticipated that any detriment would result from bringing it back still further. There is the question of State expenditure. There would be a saving there of at least £300,000 a year, I gather, and that, capitalised at 6 per cent., would amount to a very large sum. All this together would provide a compensation fund greatly in excess of any claims that would be submitted against it, especially if any action of the Government, if it adopted the advice that I venture to give, brought the rupee back to its permanent level before the War of 1s. 4d. The compensation fund would be ample. Presuming, however, that it was not ample, surely since the matter affects the whole community, and since some have gained and some have lost, you ought not to put the whole burden upon the ex-soldier and the settler of the pre-War time, or the debtor interest; surely you could do as in this country, reduce the burden on the debtor interest by spreading the whole cost over the whole community. I venture, therefore, to
suggest that a funded loan could be raised and charged upon the whole community to provide any further sums required, though I do not admit these would be required. There is also the cost of production which would result, and would permit the payment of interest, and an ample sinking fund. I venture, however, to think that the action I have suggested would relieve the producing class of East Africa of this incubus, which, solely through the inaction of His Majesty's Government, has been placed upon their shoulders. You would relieve them of it, and they would, in the future, be able to develop this great territory which, to the best of their ability, they are endeavouring to do.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): In view of the very technical character of the points raised in the two speeches to which we have just listened, it will possibly be considered for the convenience of the House if I answer them now, and for the general course of discussion to proceed to which I can give an answer later. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) raised one or two interesting points in connection with the position in Nyasaland. His main point, I think, being his objection to the export duty which has been imposed on tobacco, cotton, and tea. He says, very rightly, that it is our policy to encourage the growth of these articles in the British Dominions. At the same time I may say that the particular revenue position in Nyasaland made it obligatory—if we were not to be financed by the British taxpayer—for us to make both ends meet. Unless we were prepared to introduce the very elaborate machinery of an Income Tax which my hon. Friend would have had to pay in addition to the Income Tax here, of which he justly complains, it was essential to find some simple and easily levied tax. Under present conditions there is no easier, simpler, and more justifiable tax than a relatively low export tax. We have export taxes upon tin and rubber in the Straits Settlements, on cotton in Uganda, on cocoa, palm kernels, palm oils, in fact on a very large range of subjects in West Africa. These duties are found very convenient for the purposes of revenue. I think under existing circumstances they are not
duties which hamper or restrict the producer. My hon. Friend complained about the 2d. duty on tobacco. I may say in regard to this that 50 per cent. is remitted to the small producers. My hon. Friend said this entirely does away with the advantage of preference. I would remind him that the preference to this kind of tobacco in the British market is 17d. a lb., and that with the payment of the 2d. duty, there is still a preference of 1s. 3d. over the foreign producer. Over and above that, Nyasaland is on the sterling basis, which, as my hon. and gallant Friend has just contended, introduces a further substantial preference against America and other countries in respect of the exchange. I hope it may not be necessary to continue these duties for very long. If there should be a heavy fall in the price of tobacco, or if it was made clear that this duty was actually having the effect of stopping production in Nyasaland, we should certainly be prepared to reconsider the matter. At the same time, we consider it, at this moment, an essential step in order to balance the revenue, and to carry on the ordinary work of government, which is, after all, in the interests of the grower of tobacco and cotton, as those of anyone else. My hon. Friend said that those concerned ought to have received due warning. He is an old Member of this House, and he knows that the last thing any Chancellor of the Exchequer does is to warn his victims of what he proposes to put upon them.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the effect of certain Regulations which appear, I gather, recently to have been imposed by the Governor of Nyasaland in connection with food production. I have no information whether this food control is connected in any way with the future programme of public works, nor do I know whether it has in view the fact that an excessive growing of tobacco and cotton might result in the danger of a shortage of food. I cannot say, but I shall certainly make inquiries. I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I deal in the same manner with the points he raised in regard to the action of the Government in the matter of exchanging cotton land for other land in the possession of existing holders. I really cannot say whether, or how far, any given acre of good cotton land should
be exchanged for two acres of other land. Whether or not this is a reasonable offer depends upon what the land exchanged is, and what the exact conditions and circumstances are. But I say again, as in the matter of the food regulations, I shall certainly inquire.
I come now to the very much larger and much more controversial issue raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Brigadier-General Cockerill). I refer to the question of the currency. This is one of those very difficult abstract subjects which often generate more heat than light. I should certainly say, whatever may have been said outside—I have seen circulars in which I have been charged with every conceivable crime in this connection—;my hon. and gallant Friend has treated the matter with fairness and moderation. I wish that we had had a single permanent stable exchange for the whole Empire. I am sure such a thing would be an immense help to Imperial trade. It would constitute a very valuable and absolutely unobjectionable form of Imperial preference. It would stimulate investment and trade throughout the Empire, and it would give to our Imperial trade a stability which foreign trade does not possess. At the same time we have to recognise the actual facts of the situation. There is not to-day, and there has not been in the past, a single Imperial currency or exchange system.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Before passing from that point, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any intention of investigating the possibilities of uniform exchange throughout the Empire?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Personally I am prepared to investigate the subject with the greatest interest, and I hope it may be possible to secure such a growth of interest in this question throughout the Empire as may in the end lead to practical results. To proceed. Of course the incoherence of our exchanges in the Empire has had most serious effects. The rise of the Indian rupee has not only affected East Africa, but has affected almost every one of our colonies in that part of the world. The action of the Indian Government—whether right or wrong it is not my affair to say—undoubtedly has affected conditions in Ceylon and other colonies, such as Mauritius, which are on a rupee basis. In colonies on a sterling basis, like
the Straits Settlements, it has enormously increased the cost of living to the Indian natives in those colonies, as well as the cost of all goods brought from India. In Somaliland alone the increased cost due to the rise in the Indian rupee will, J believe, add something like £80,000 to the grant-in-aid. I mention these facts not by way of blame but to show some of the disadvantages of the incoherence of the system of exchange in the Empire. But now to come to the narrower issue of my hon. and gallant Friend as to the action of the Colonial Office. It is suggested in this respect as being contrary to law, that by law the East African currency was established on a gold or sterling basis—he used both terms as synonymous, which I am afraid they are not—

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: Identical.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Perhaps, in the past, but not legally synonymous. As a matter of fact, the legal unit of value, the statutory unit of account in East Africa has always been the Indian rupee. In 1905 there was introduced a subsidiary nickel coinage for lower, and a paper currency for higher denominations, and it was also at the last moment decided to make the sovereign—not £l sterling—legal tender for 15 rupees. This was considered convenient in view of the large number of South African settlers and traders in the country. It was not done with the intention of fixing the Indian rupee. The rupee was undoubtedly fixed in India by the use of the sovereign as legal tender for 15 rupees, but so far as East Africa was concerned, it was not adopted for that reason. In any case, the legal basis of the currency and the statutory unit of account remained the rupee. It is perfectly true that for convenience the normal sterling equivalent has usually been given in Government publications alongside of the rupee. But my hon. and gallant Friend was not quite right in saying that the accounts were made up in sterling. They are always. made up in rupees, though the published estimates are given in the normal sterling equivalent of 15 rupees to the £l, which, I admit the point for what it is worth, shows that the departmental machinery of East Africa has gone on treating as purely temporary and transitory the changes in relative values which have actually taken place. The position of
the rupee in East Africa was, in fact, much the same as that of the £1 sterling here—which I might remind the Committee was also originally a silver unit, and only comparatively recently linked up to gold. Both were convertible into gold at a fixed rate, but in each case circumstances connected with the War made the maintenance of that convertibility impossible. But while sterling depreciated here, the rupee appreciated owing to the rise in value of its silver content. That difference, however, does not affect the legal position, and just as it is really impossible for a man here to claim that he shall be paid his debts in golden sovereigns to-day, or in rupees, at the old parity, so no man has any legal complaint in East Africa if he has to pay in rupees and cannot pay in British sterling.
You may say that in East Africa it is the creditor who gains. But a great deal of the business in East Africa, whether done by Indian or European merchants, is done by money borrowed in India which has to be repaid to India, and it would not be fair to force them to accept a very much lower sum in repayment to that which they themselves contemplated. You cannot disentangle the debtor and creditor's interest in this way, and you must not involve the whole currency system of a country in complete chaos.
As far as the legal situation goes, the position in East Africa was the same as in India, and by far the easiest course for the Colonial Office to have adopted would have been to have left things alone—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and followed in India's wake. I notice that some hon. Members approve of that, but I felt that it was not the right thing to leave it alone. I did think that the depreciation of the rupee involved considerable hardship upon the producers of that country, and I have done the very best I could and I have gone to the furthest length which I conceived was practicable to help those people.
There are two things I wanted to secure. First of all, permanent stability with sterling, i.e., with this country with which East Africa has most of its business. Secondly, I wanted to go as far as possible in the direction of undoing the effect of the appreciation of silver, which when I first took the matter in hand had brought the rupee up to 1s. 8d.
My hon. Friend says quite truly that I did contemplate bringing the rupee back to 1s. 4d., and although there were practical objections to making the Treasury note legal tender we hoped, by the mechanism of an exchange board, and by the issue of new token currency which would gradually replace the silver rupee, to produce the same result and bring the rate back again within not too long a period of time. The hon. Member asked what caused my fall, what hidden hand influenced me in going back on that decision? It was the sudden steep further rise of the rupee at the end of last year. It was 1s. 8d. in July, and then rose to 1s. 10d. in August. Then suddenly it went up to 2s., 2s. 2d. and 2s. 4d. Not long after that, as a result of the heavy depreciation of sterling as compared with gold, and of the Indian Government's decision, it rose overnight to 2s. 10d. It was impossible to go back from 2s. 10d. to 1s. 4d., or ask creditors to accept a 1s. 4d. rupee as a settlement of their claims. It is not true that the creditor was profiteering. Throughout East Africa the creditor, whether bank or Indian trader, owed his rupees to India in turn. As a rule he has made nothing by the appreciation, and any steps taken to force down the price rate below India, do not inflict loss on him. Those representing the Indian community are a very essential part of the whole mechanism of trade in East Africa. They do the whole of the small retail trade and a considerable part of the wholesale trade. They live largely on goods imported from India, and any difference between the Indian exchange and East Africa raises the cost of living against the Indians. It is true that the Indian community have profited during the War, but that is not any reason for inflicting injustice upon them.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend is aware of the report of the Committee appointed by the Governor which inquired into the increased cost of living there. They reported that in the opinion of the Committee there has been no appreciable increase in the cost of living of Asiatics. The Committee which made that report consisted of six members, including a banker, an Indian, two officials, and two commercial men.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: If that is so I am very glad to hear it; but that is not
in accord with various telegrams which I have received from East Africa. In any case you could not put the whole burden of the exchange position on any one particular section of the community. We arrived at the fairest possible compromise. But this question is not only one of exchange, but one of currency. The whole of East Africa uses a silver currency, and though a certain amount of paper is circulated the natives do not like it. We have had very difficult times in West Africa owing to our depending on paper there. I almost think if I appealed to those hon. Members who know and have interests in West Africa and asked them if they could be given the alternative of having an abundant silver circulation at the risk of appreciation of the exchange or of having stability with sterling with a paper currency, as they have had, they would prefer the former. It is quite impossible to bring the rupee down from 2s. l0d. to 1s. 4d. without the disappearance of the currency, and that would have paralysed the whole trade of the country. The bringing of it down to 2s. has been the cause of much anxiety in this respect, and it is only with the greatest difficulty that we have been able to find enough currency to purchase the Uganda cotton crop. I would remind the Committee that the interests of the European settlers, important as they are, are, after all, smaller than the native producers' interests, who contribute the bulk of the exports from East Africa; I am including Uganda as well. Anything that would have caused the currency to disappear, would have stopped the cultivation of Uganda cotton, possibly for years, and would have thrown back one of the most successful and promising experiments in the British Empire. We had also to consider that we were dealing with three territories, and not one only. It was impossible to put down the rupee to 1s. 4d. in East Africa, whilst across an invisible frontier of 500 miles you had it at 2s. l0d. Those who represented the Tanganyika territory were absolutely against any drastic change; Uganda was prepared to accept a reduction to 1s. 4d. when the rupee stood at 1s. 8d., and is, I believe, satisfied with the change now being carried out.
Lastly, I wish to make this point. The whole question is one of degree. The arguments of my hon. Friend, and those
which have been used outside, would imply that appreciation of the currency is in all circumstances an unmitigated curse, and that a depreciation of the currency is a panacea for all ills. If that were true how foolish is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to issue more "Brad-buries" to bring down the price to 10s. or less in terms of gold. I may point out that the Committee which dealt with Indian currency, a representative Committee, were with one exception in favour of appreciating the rupee. I do not say that I agree with the conclusions of that Committee, but I do suggest that there must be something to be said for a view which they expressed so unanimously. The whole of the arguments which have been thrown at the Colonial Office as to their hopeless incompetence and scandalous betrayal of East Africa in not bringing the rupee down to 1s. 4d. sterling, convict us of no less incompetence for not going further and bringing the rupee down to 1s. or even down to Id. If it really were true that depreciation is in itself good, and that local costs never alter, however much you depreciate the exchange, then undoubtedly we were foolish not to go much lower than 1s. 4d. And on the same line of reasoning I could prove that, by reducing the rupee to a Id., we should show an enormous profit on our reserves, and that our labour for constructing railways, etc., would cost hardly anything. I must insist that this is a question of degree. Legally we were not bound to do anything except to maintain the rupee standard. But we have tried to meet a very difficult position, and we have gone as far as it was possible without defeating our object. The effect of appreciation or depreciation is largely psychological. When the exchange goes up by imperceptible stages, the cost of production rises, because local wages and prices remain, for a shorter or longer time, unaffected, and it did so rise in East Africa to an extent which made it desirable that we should help. But when you attempt—and suddenly attempt—by Government action to reverse that process and to turn a coin whose exchange value is 2s. 4d. into one of 1s. 4d., then it becomes obvious to all the world, and you set about creating a general dislocation of local prices. Our only hope of achieving the object we had in view, and of mitigating the evil effect of the rise
in the rupee, was to do something which was so moderate in its effect as not to upset the whole range of local prices. I was prepared last year to bring it back from 1s. 8d. to 1s. 4d., though the information I have since had is to the effect that even that would probably have led to a considerable change in local prices, in view of the great demand for labour and the tendency towards higher wages. If to cut the rupee down by 4d. was not unlikely to be followed by an increase in local prices, I am quite certain that any attempt to get back from 2s. 4d. to 1s. 4d. would have meant a complete upset and reversal of local prices, and the settler would have been no better off than he is to-day. What we are doing in respect of bringing the rupee down to 2s., is going just as far as is possible to help the settler on the exchange without defeating our whole object, and, incidentally, giving him permanent stability of exchange with this country.
Now as to the position of the soldier settlers. My hon. and gallant Friend spoke of misunderstanding. He said he would not use the word "misrepresentation," though pamphlets outside have spoken of "betrayal." The original Committee of 1916, dealing with the then price of the rupee, recommended £700 as a reasonable outlay for the settler. When the scheme was actually carried out the rupee had risen to 1s. 8d. But we raised that £700 to £1,000, practically in the ratio of the increase from 1s. 4d to 2s. Since then, measures have been taken to revise the rate of payment for the settlers' land, measures which I think to a large extent will help them. It has been suggested that by reason of the assurances given by me, a great many settlers did not make the money they might have done by sending out the rupee.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: They did not avoid the loss as they might have done.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I do not think there can be many cases in which loss occurred. Very few settlers, if any, owing to the shortage of shipping, went out till the rupee had reached 2s., and I do not think the ordinary settler was likely, if he were a wise man, to have remitted his money to Africa until the last moment when he knew he was actually going. Therefore, I do not
believe there can be any but a small number of cases where there was actual loss. Now as to the settlers' future cost of production. If it is true that the cost of production and wages have risen 50 per cent. in East Africa, where in the world have costs of production not gone up in terms of sterling? Settlers here at home who have had to put up cottages and have had to buy farm implements, have found the cost increased by more than 100 per cent. In West Africa the cost of labour has also increased, and there is nowhere where you can get entirely away from the effect of this depreciation of sterling. Moreover, as far as coffee and sisal—the chief products of these settlers—are concerned, they sell these in competition with Mexico and Brazil, both countries suffering from an appreciated currency. Where they sell their goods locally the price of the rupee does not affect them.
I am afraid that owing to the complexity of the subject I have spoken at much greater length than I intended. But to sum up: By the action we have taken, we have done the most we could to help the soldier settlers in East Africa without inflicting undue hardship or injustice on others and without upsetting the whole financial and currency systems of the country. We have done that and we have linked up East Africa permanently with British sterling. That seems to be far more in the interests of the producer of every class of goods in East Africa than if we had gone on keeping the whole thing unsettled for years, in the hope that we might ultimately get back to the 1s. 4d. level.

Sir F. BANBURY: I will be as brief as I can, but in view of the fact that the three speeches to which we have just listened have occupied so much of the time available for the discussion of this Vote, I will only say that, as far as I could understand the hon. Gentleman's speech, it is merely a question of exchange. In business where exchange comes in, you sometimes get a loss and sometimes make a profit, but nothing could be more fatal than for the Government to try and alter the natural course of exchange. What took place when the rupee was fixed in India at 1s. 4d. illustrates that point. It was Sir William Harcourt who fixed it at 1s. 4d., and the exchange of that day was so bad that
when the officials out there remitted their savings to England, they lost by the transaction. It would have been far better to have left things as they were, for, as I repeat, nothing could be more fatal than to interfere in these matters, and nothing could be more fatal than to introduce paper currency which seems to have been the object of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Government has left the Chamber. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that my hon. Friend having risen after only two Members had spoken, and having occupied the attention of the House for a period of 45 minutes, has now left. Nothing, I think, could be more discourteous than that. It has always been understood that when an occupant of the front Bench has spoken, whether he be in charge of the Vote or not, he should remain in the House to hear the criticisms, if any, on his speech.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel L. Wilson): May I explain that my hon. and gallant Friend has been seriously indisposed and only came to the House at great personal inconvenience? Having spoken, he had to go out because the condition of his throat needed attention.

Sir F. BANBURY: I accept that of course, although the hon. Member seems to have spoken at great length, and having been able to do so could not have been suffering very seriously. At any rate, we certainly ought to have someone here to represent the Government. There is I see on the Bench an hon. Friend of my own who occupies a prominent position as Junior Lord of the Treasury, and he and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping are the only two people representing the Government in the Committee at the moment. That fact shows a great want of courtesy to the Committee. I should like to know to whom I am to address my questions. I see another Junior Lord of the Treasury has come in, but I do think we ought to have present &? Member of the Government.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): May I explain that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping is representing the Government? The Under-Secretary
for the Colonies is seriously indisposed and my hon. Friend has undertaken to represent him.

6.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am sure I have no wish to say anything discourteous of my hon. Friend, but I do think we ought to have someone of more experience, a Member of the Government in the House during this discussion. There is an enormous number of people in the Government now. Could we not have had one of those right hon. Gentlemen who are without a portfolio, and are getting £5,000 a year? I notice that the Opposition are equally slack. There is no one oh the Front Opposition Bench, and the maintenance of the privileges of the House is left to my hon. Friend near me and myself. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Government certain questions. This is the second year after the War, when, in view of the enormous taxation that is going to be imposed upon us, we ought to reduce and not to increase expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman will turn to page 34 of the Estimates, he will see that there are now nine principal clerks in the Colonial Office instead of eight last year. Why is that principal clerk added, at a salary varying from £850 to £1,000? There are also an additional senior clerk and two more junior clerks. Then there are 21 assistant clerks this year, as against 16 last year, and 19 charwomen as against 16 last year. Why are those three additional charwomen wanted, at a moment when the Government ought to be doing all they can to reduce expenditure? It may seem a small thing to the House, and the salaries of the charwomen are not very great; one gets 16s. and 18 get 14s. a week; but it all shows that, instead of there being an effort to economise, there is, on the contrary, an effort to expend more money and to have more officials. All of these instances I have mentioned are instances, not of any increase in the salaries of officials, but of a greater number of officials.
Under the heading "Oversea Settlement" there is an Editor of Publications at £50 a month. There is only one at the present time, but last year there was none. What does he do? Then there is a Chairman, Society for Overseas Settlement of British Women, at £500 a year, and there are "Incidental Expenses, including Travelling, Laundry, etc.," £610. Under the heading "Minor
Schemes connected with Oversea Settlement, including Grant for Hostel," the amount is £9,000. Last year there was nothing of this sort at all. To sum up, as far as I can make out, the administration to pay the passages of certain soldiers for the purpose of oversea settlement, which passages are estimated to cost £500,000, is going to involve an expenditure of £30,000. If the passages of these soldiers are going to be paid, surely arrangements could have been made with the shipping companies to send in their charge for the passages, which could be quite easily checked, and then it could be paid. What is the necessity of starting all these secretaries and clerks and other people, at a total cost of £30,000, apparently only in order to pay for the tickets of certain soldiers who are going overseas? I do not know what the grant of £5,000 for the Society for Overseas Settlement for British Women is, nor why the nation should thus contribute to that society. All these things ought to be run on their own basis, and not subsidised by the taxpayer. It is rather curious, after the Debate on the Budget a few days ago, and in view of the fact that we are going to consider to-morrow the Resolutions putting this gigantic burden upon the taxpayer, that we should find that this Vote, which surely ought not to have been increased or extended, shows no effort or sign of economy, but, on the other hand, shows increased, and in many cases extravagant, expenditure. I conclude, as I began, by making a very serious protest against the way in which the Government treat this House in Committee of Supply. The most important thing at the present moment is for this House to keep a hand upon the expenditure of the country, and the only way in which we can do that is in Committee of Supply. Look at the Front Bench!

Mr. INSKIP: Sir Frederick Lugard has recently written a report of absorbing interest concerning Northern Nigeria, and I think that all who have read it must have welcomed the declaration he made concerning the efficiency and loyalty of the native administration. It is, however, impossible not to overlook the fact that statements do reach this country from time to time from which one would infer that everything is not quite as harmonious and happy as Sir Frederick Lugard's report would lead one to expect.
I do not know whether such statements may be treated as the complaints of persons who think their interests are not sufficiently attended to, but undoubtedly some people from Nigeria report that there are matters which require attention in connection with the administration of the country by the Fulani Chiefs It is impossible not to observe from Sir Frederick Lugard's report the bias, possibly perfectly justifiable, which he exhibits towards Moslem influence. Mr. Temple, a distinguished public servant, has recently written a book concerning the administration of Northern Nigeria, and there is at least one passage in it in which he attributes many of the difficulties which are experienced there to the irresponsible and ill-informed interference of the House of Commons. I suppose, however, that it is our duty, notwithstanding those criticisms, to interfere to the best of our ability when we think that interference is desirable. No one wishes, and I least of all, to resort to what may be described as the direct system of government in our great Protectorates, under which European officials exercise authority, and minor posts alone are held by native officials. I suppose that indirect rule is the system which we have adopted for good and for all, namely, the government of the natives through their own institutions. It is obvious, however, that this system has disadvantages, or perhaps difficulties, which it would be idle not to realise and to face. For one thing, it tends to stereotype customs and institutions which are associated with a backward race, and which are not consistent with the progress of that race towards a higher state of civilisation. It gives permanent effect, at any rate, in Northern Nigeria, to the domination of the Fulani Chiefs, which is not an old-established influence in Northern Nigeria, but a comparatively new authority. Yet our system at the present day tends to fasten this influence, not always wisely exercised, upon the natives of Northern Nigeria.
The anxiety to which I desire to give expression is lest this influence and the Moslem influence should tend to prevent the proper development of the country, and arrest the progress of its people to the higher state of civilisation which I hope they will reach in time. This anxiety is not decreased by some of the passages
in Sir Frederick Lugard's report, which are confirmed by statements which I find in Mr. Temple's book. They tend to show that the missionary is to be excluded from any part or influence in shaping the destinies of Northern Nigeria. If I thought the German model was the model of British missions, I should certainly not be intervening now with these observations. I fully accept what I understand to be the determined policy of the British Government, namely, that there shall be no pressure on native races in favour of Christianity I think, however, that I am justified in saying that Nigeria, and Northern Nigeria especially, could never have become what it is at the present time had it- not been for the moral forces which are largely the fruit of Christianity introduced by missions into Africa.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Oh!

Mr. INSKIP: My hon. and gallant Friend indicates that he dissents from the opinion I have expressed. Perhaps, if he were more familiar with the history of the missions in Southern Nigeria, he would know the part that they have played in the development of that country. Northen Nigeria is either held by purely material forces, which cannot be permanent and must sooner or later break down, or it is held by moral forces. If it is held by moral forces, surely it is the duty of this country to see that those moral forces are of the highest possible character; and we, as a Christian country, believe that moral forces infused with the true spirit of Christianity are most likely to be successful. I would venture to suggest the principles which I think should be followed in this connection, and to which I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to make some assent. The first is that the native race has a right, just as a white race has, to choose its own religious teaching. That is absolutely consistent with what Sir Frederick Lugard himself said in 1903. The second principle is that, if social laws or customs are to be enforced by the ruling authority, they must be such as to disassociate civil obligations from any religious purpose or meaning. The chief of an important township in the Bauchi Highlands of Northern Nigeria was deposed for neglecting to offer sacrifices and perform heathen rites at the time of the sowing of crops. I apprehend that that is absolutely contrary to the principles
which I have presumed to suggest. Why should a man be forced to perform heathen rites and offer sacrifices, if he has come to a better state of mind, which is the hypothesis upon which I proceed?

Major Earl WINTERTON: Were they heathen rites or Moslem rites?

Mr. INSKIP: They were heathen rites. The country is a pagan country; I am speaking of the Bauchi region of Northern Nigeria. Again, the headman of a village was summoned for sowing crops before the usual rites had been performed. I apprehend that that is perfectly justifiable. It is not right that because a man is not in agreement with the faith of another he should be privileged to secure an earlier opportunity of sowing his fields. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to say this principle will be adopted by the Governor of Northern Nigeria, that if these customs of the country are to be enforced they shall be distinctly dissociated from the religious ceremonies and rites with which they have been in the past connected. The third rule I suggest is that people shall be free to ask for and to receive religious teachers, and Christian teachers, are of course, those I have in mind. I am encouraged in putting this forward because I find that Sir Frederick Lugard in his report says the Government cordially recognise mission activities in pagan areas, and yet in that very pagan area of which I have been speaking I can give cases time after time in which the native authorities in particular districts have asked for religious teaching, which is connected partly with education and partly with their desire to learn something better than their native superstition, and those requests have been resisted and their petition refused without any reason being assigned by the authority who gives the refusal. That is wrong. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will give an assurance that in future the native people shall be free, at any rate in pagan areas, to choose religious teachers of a Christian influence if they so desire.
I wish to refer to the Rhodesian natives. It is beyond controversy that there is not a single native in Southern Bhodesia who owns a single acre of land. That is admitted in a document put forward by the Colonial Office in defence of the position at present. There are a large number of natives who have had reserves marked
out for them, but they are not secured to them. There are large numbers of natives who are living on inalienated lands. Those natives are not allowed to possess any secure tenure of a single kraal or acre of land which they and their forbears may have cultivated. They are subject to be dispossessed or forced to pay a premium at the whim of the white settler, or possibly of the South African Company, or some other person who has appropriated rights which surely belong to the native. What is the justice of this system? Is Southern Rhodesia to be one of the countries in which the natives have no rights at all? I know the defence is made, at any rate with regard to the reserved areas, that they are so immense and so extravagantly beyond anything that the natives could require for their proper needs that it is justifiable for the British South Africa Company to take the surplus and apply them for other purposes. In this country that would be called Socialism. What is Socialism in this country—namely, the doctrine that when a man has enough the rest shall be taken from him—apparently becomes Imperialism in Southern Rhodesia, and the request which we, who take some interest in this matter, are justified in making is that the reserved areas in the first place shall be finally marked out and assured to the natives. Can my hon. and gallant Friend give an undertaking that that will be done at the earliest moment? It is overdue. In 1903 it was recommended by the South African Native Affairs Commission. It was again recommended by the Reserve Commission of 1917, and yet, at present 35,000 natives are on the verge of being evicted from reserved areas marked out for the native population, because an area 12 miles wide is to be taken from it for the purpose of a railway without compensation being paid to them.
I apprehend that the only safe principle on which we ought to proceed, as responsible for the administration of this country, is that whatever rights the native has shall be made clear and shall be assured to him—that he shall have access to the Courts to enforce those rights, and that if for public purposes the reserves are required, for railways or public works, they shall be taken from the tribal community that owns them and occupies them only upon payment of such proper com-
pensation as some competent Court may award according to well-known principles. As regards those who are living upon the unalienated lands and do not go into the reserved areas I make a similar petition, that they shall not be left at the mercy of any company or any settler, but that if they have, by a period of occupation, whatever it is, held a kraal or lands, those possessions shall be assured to them without the liability to pay something in the nature of a rent either to the white settler or to the representative of the company, and that they also shall know what their rights are and shall have access to the Courts, and shall be entitled to own property on which they may live according to their customs, and on which they may die and be buried according to their desire. At present these natives are precluded from even owning the land in which they may be buried. That is not a state of things which is creditable to the administration of the British Empire. I am not suggesting that it is the result of any want of sympathy on the part of the Colonial Office. I am claiming no extravagant rights for natives. I know perfectly well the defects from which they suffer. All we are asking is that whatever system the British rule is responsible for, that system shall make clear the rights that the natives have, that those rights shall be assured to the natives and that they shall be given rights rather than grants. Their possessions may be few, but they shall be assured to them. Their privileges may seem slight and insignificant to us, but at any rate the privileges that they value they shall retain. If we follow some such rule as that, then alone is Southern Rhodesia likely to be as happy and well ordered a Protectorate as I believe other parts of the British Empire are.

Earl WINTERTON: Owing to the abnormal length of the speeches this afternoon—against which I enter my most emphatic protest, as it is extremely wrong that the time of the Committee should be occupied at such length by a few speeches—it is not really possible to get questions discussed as fully as they should be. I wish to make one remark confirming what has just been said by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Inskip). This country has a great responsibility, not merely in Rhodesia, but in all parts of Africa, in seeing that the natives are not dispossessed of their lands. It would be tactless and undesir-
able to refer to the case of the Union, which is infinitely worse, but I have always foreseen, if one may look ahead, that within the next 20 years a most serious state of affairs will arise through the whole of South Africa over the question of native land. I regret that more attention has not been given to the subject by the Colonial Office. The only way in which it can be solved is by some form of conference between the responsible representatives of the different Governments of South Africa, the Union Government and the representatives of the Chartered Company and the representatives of this country, and I should like to see it discussed between General Smuts and the Prime Minister, because, sooner or later, we shall, through the whole of South Africa, be up against a difficult situation with regard to native rights. That is not endorsing the foolish accusations which are sometimes brought by people against the Rhodesian settlers. Those who know anything about Rhodesia or the Union strongly resent them. On the whole I believe the natives are treated in the Union and in Rhodesia as well as in any part of the world.
I wish to refer to the conditions in the Civil Service of Northern Nigeria. I asked a question the other day with regard to leave for officers in the Nigerian Civil Service. I gather from the answer that my hon. and gallant Friend admits that there is at present a good deal of dissatisfaction at the conditions prevailing, but he treated the matter as not of very great importance. I am certain, from my own experience of administration in different parts of Africa, that there is no matter of more importance to Civil Servants than the question of leave. For example, in the Sudan, with which I am fairly familiar, leave is granted on the basis of three months every year to every Civil Servant on the ground that without such leave it would be impossible for him to retain his health. I do not quite know why my hon. and gallant Friend gave the impression that this was not an important question. It is most important. It should not be at the discretion of the Governor, but should be laid down as a hard and fast rule. I am informed that 20 per cent. of the total emoluments and pay for officers of the Service is in the form of allowances and those allowances are at the discretion of the Government. If that is so, it is absolutely wrong. I hope the
information I have been given is not? accurate, but that is what I am informed by a member of the Civil Service. My hon. and gallant Friend gave the impression the other day that the conditions of service in Nigeria were easy because the health of the white man in the country had been steadily improving and the health standard was a good one. The health of white men in all parts of Africa has been improved, but I hope the Committee realises that men who go to administer native territories are chosen from men of the best class of physique. They are only men of the finest physique who are chosen. If hon. Members look at the figures of disability and casualties, death and sickness among the members of the Colonial Civil Service they will see what a tremendous strain it is upon the health of members of the Civil Service. While I am glad to hear it has improved, I hope neither the Committee nor the Government, especially the Government, are going to suggest that Nigeria, or any part of Africa, except possibly some portion of East Africa, is a health resort. The actual administrators in the Colonial Civil Service—I do not mean the head administrators, the clerks, etc.—are subjected to conditions which are harder than those of the settlers. Located at one place the settlers can make themselves fairly comfortable, whereas the administrators have to be constantly travelling from one part to another. I hope that, in order to meet the position of these civil servants who have to import food and other materials from this country for their own use, that they will be allowed to import them at the ports in Nigeria free of duty, considering that it is absolutely essential for white men out there to import food from England.
I want to know whether the Committee which is being formed to consider the conditions of service there is not a mere Departmental Committee. I hope it is not merely a Departmental Committee. This House has always had a dislike for Departmental Committees to inquire into conditions of the Service, and I am quite sure I shall have the support of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) in objecting to a Departmental Committee to inquire into the conditions of the Civil Service in Nigeria. I should like to know whether the Association of European Civil Servants in Africa has any representative on the Committee. I appeal with confi-
dence to the Committee to support the claims of these men for whom I speak, who are not able to bring pressure to bear upon the House as civil servants can do in this country. I am assured that their conditions are by no means satisfactory, and I trust that we shall have an undertaking from the representative of the Colonial Office that, as soon as he has received the reports which I understand he is to receive from the different Colonial Governments on the condition of the public service, he will make a full statement, telling us whether or not the recommendations which the Committee in question make are accepted by the great bulk of civil servants in Africa.

Mr. SPOOR: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £100.
I have no intention of following the line of technical discussion with which this Debate opened. I am not much concerned about what the Under-Secretary for the Colonies described as the incoherence of our Exchange system and its result, but I am more concerned about what we may regard as the incoherence of our Colonial policy and its results. I wish to deal with certain places which are a long distance from each other, though the problems are not dissimilar. I will deal first with the situation which exists in Trinidad. For years agitation has been going on there for representative government. Again and again appeals have been made to the Colonial Office, and these appeals have sometimes met with a sympathetic response. I believe as far back as 1909 the then Under-Secretary for the Colonies said, in answer to a question, that the grant of representative government to Trinidad was receiving most sympathetic consideration. Eleven years have gone by and there has been no measure of representative government conferred upon this people, and the result is that the working classes are absolutely powerless to defend themselves and to secure any real improvement in their conditions. Despite all the appeals that they make, their position, instead of becoming better, is becoming steadily worse. I do not know whether this House quite realises what is happening in that part of the world. Only this year a Bill has been introduced into the Legislative Council there, which is described as a Seditious Publications Bill. Members will have a distinct recollection of the debates which
took place here with regard to the D.O.R.A. regulations in our own Colonies, and yet at the present time, when the War is over, and for reasons that so far have not been given either to this House or to any other assembly of which I have heard, we have a proposal to pass legislation in Trinidad of a most coercive and repressive character. There are some clauses in this Bill which are certainly reminiscent of D.O.R.A. One of the crimes for which very severe punishment will be inflicted is described in this manner:
to excite any person or class of persons to attempt to procure an alteration of any law, or any matter in the State by law established otherwise than by lawful means—
whatever that may mean. It is also a crime
to advocate, teach, or defend disbelief in or opposition to organised government.
It would be rather difficult to find quite so comprehensive a sentence as that, because it really covers everything and gives to those in authority power to imprison practically anybody in the place. There is no liberty of the subject whatever. Of course, it is a crime
to seduce any member of His Majesty's naval or military forces, including the local forces, or of the constabulary, from his allegiance to His Majesty, or his duty.
One might have quoted other examples of a kind of legislation that would not be tolerated in this country. I want to know why it should be imposed in a place and under conditions where the workers at present have absolutely no power to defend themselves. Will the Under-Secretary tell us the reason for this proposed legislation, or, better still, it would be in the interests of peace in the West Indies, and in the interests of those who live there and ourselves if he could give us an assurance that the ordinance to which I have referred shall not become operative.
The hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Inskip) referred to the situation in Rhodesia. Like him, I have no wish to go into the history of the acquisition of Southern Rhodesia, though looked at from any point of view, it would be extremely difficult to find a more disgraceful record. The way in which advantage was taken of an untutored African King, the pathetic appeal that Lobengula made to the Government and the late Queen, the almost merciless persistence of those who sought the exploitation of that country
for the benefit of British capital and British industry, and the expropriation of the natives, all these subjects have been discussed in this House before. They remain to the eternal discredit of our country. But we are there, and I am quite prepared to admit the immense difficulties that are bound to arise in the government of a country like Southern Bhodesia. One has some idea, even though one may not have been in that part of the world, of the character of the problems that face the administrative officers in colonies of that kind.

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: And the pioneers.

Mr. SPOOR: Yes, I believe the problems that face the pioneers who go there. What is our future policy going to be? We are prepared to admit that many representatives of our country have rendered magnificent service in that part of the world, and have made a real contribution to the development of it But at the same time, I do not think that the policy at present being pursued is one which is likely either to contribute to peace or to a better understanding between the natives and ourselves. I do not want to enter into any discussion of the claims of the Chartered Company for the millions which they are asking the British taxpayer to pay. Until we have had the report of Lord Cave's Commission it would be out of place to discuss that point. But I would like to have from the Under-Secretary an assurance, if he is prepared to give it, that before any claim is paid, before a single penny of British money goes to those who are in control of the Chartered Company, the fullest opportunity will be given to this House to discuss that claim in all its bearings. There are many of us who believe that probably the bulk of those claims, if not all, are without justification. I do not think it will be seriously argued that we have not taken the land from the natives. The complete restoration of that land may not be practicable at the moment, and it may never be practicable; but, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Bristol, is it not possible to secure—and surely when one asks for this one is making a very modest and reasonable demand—the granting of secure tenure to the native communities of land in those areas where there are no white men, subject, if necessary, to
these native communities being able to show that they are beneficially occupying their land? If the Chartered Company insists upon their claim, and there is no doubt they will, it would be a wise thing for this House to say that no claim should be paid except for the granting of a concession of the kind I have just indicated. We can only justify our occupation of Southern Rhodesia as we regard our position there as a trust, not to exploit the natives of that country. Unfortunately, we believe that they are being exploited, and we ask that they should have a fuller freedom than they have yet known.
I would like to raise another point which is of perhaps even greater importance than those to which I have already referred, and that is the situation created in East Africa by the publication of Mr. Ainsworth's circular to which reference has been made by question and answer in the House. It appears to me that the policy that is being followed there is perhaps an excellent touchstone upon which we can test the ultimate results of this policy if it is pursued. A circular has been issued by Mr. Ainsworth, apparently with the approval of the Governor, and with regard to certain suggestions in that circular I find it extremely difficult to discriminate between them and veiled slavery, if, indeed, an adjective is necessary. This circular has been sent out to the administrative officers in the area. One paragraph states—
As regards native policy, we must recognise in the first place that no hard and fast rules can be laid down as applicable to each and every tribe. We can only lay down a general policy allowing for elasticity to suit the various conditions of tribes. Our ideal must be to combine the progress and prosperity of the protectorate with the welfare of the natives. The white man must be paramount.

HON. MEMBERS: Why not?

Mr. SPOOR: I thought we believed in Britain for the British and Africa for the Africans. I thought that the ultimate goal of our colonisation was not to impose necessarily British rule and conditions on these parts of the world, but to develop the progress of the natives. We read further on—
 We must give the natives reasonable education, especially technical, industrial, and agricultural.
Are we to understand from that suggestion that education has to be of a kind most favourable to British capital.
I agree, and every sane Member of this House agrees, with the desirability of doing all that can be done to educate the natives, but I have a very shrewd suspicion that the motive behind the suggestion contained in this circular is not altogether the benefit of the native, but in order that the native may become a better wealth-producing machine. Further on we read:
With regard to native labour, there are two points to consider. First, that native labour is required for the proper development of the country, and, secondly, that we must educate the native to come out of his reserve and work for his own sake, because nothing can be worse for the young native than to remain, according to his inclination, idle in the reserve. Those who do so are likely to become vicious and effete.
Probably there is a great deal of truth in that, but how do they propose to get them out? By offering larger wages than they are receiving, or by giving them an opportunity of real development? We read further on:
The Government should, I believe, have the power to call out the idle. I believe that there should be an increased tax on young, able-bodied men. Our policy, then, I believe, should be to encourage voluntary work, in the first place, but to provide power by legislation to prevent idleness.
Apparently the Colonial Office has been sitting at the feet of Lenin and Trotsky. At all events, these indications of Bolshevism will probably cause some stir in certain quarters. Labour is needed to develop the country undoubtedly. We, the Labour party, say that that labour should be secured if it is there, and we understand that it is, by offering improved conditions and higher wages.
The position of the party with which I am associated in regard to the whole question of subject races is, first of all, to abolish altogether all economic exploitation; secondly, to educate the native so that he may take his place as a free man in the economic and political life of the country. We decline association with the policy that rests on the economic slavery of subject people. Nobody can seriously argue that the natives of the parts to which I have already referred are not at the moment living under conditions of economic slavery. We stand in this party, and, indeed, the whole international Labour movement, not simply for the application of new principles to our Colonial policy. We stand for a new spirit altogether. That is the spirit of
freedom and equality. The African native may be untutored. According to our restrictive use of the word, he may be uncivilised. But he is a human being. He has certain inalienable human rights. We believe that the domination by white men of these peoples in the interests of British shareholders is a denal of those rights Allowing for all differences that may exist between the worker of this country and the primitive peoples of Africa, I say, and I am sure that I shall be backed by the Labour movement when I say it, we feel we do not stand above the coloured man. We stand by his side.
After all, labour knows that the struggle of the coloured man, however undeveloped, however primitive may be his present conditions, is essentially the struggle of labour the whole world over. We are engaged in this country, and indeed all over Europe, in fighting the capitalist system, because we believe that the capitalist system is a bad one. We believe that it is responsible for the greater part of the injustices that scar our national and international life at the moment. We are fighting capitalism in Europe, and, with the natives, we propose to fight capitalism in Africa and everywhere else. The Labour party, at all events, has an international outlook and does believe in fundamental unity in the whole of the Labour movement. Again and again reference has been made, especially during the last twelve months, in this House to the loss of Parliamentary prestige. We have heard Members on the opposite side of the House declare that for some reason or another Parliament did not stand so well in the eyes of the public and of the world as it used to do in past days. It appears to me that the predominance of commercial interests in this House has not only made Parliament a much less effective exponent of the public will, but has imperilled, and is imperilling, our place and our power amongst the peoples.
It may be that we British people are great colonisers, but if our colonisation has no other motive than a commercial one, or colonisation will fail in the result. We believe that the exploitation of people, either black or white, can be no permanent basis of an empire or commonwealth that desires to last. And in the Labour party we desire to see a colonial policy which will aim, not at the fettering of
people, but at their freedom. We believe that that policy and that alone can lead to the commonwealth of free peoples about which we talked so much during the last few years. Moreover, I submit that that is the only possible line of progress. If we refuse to recognise that, if we refuse to make our goal freedom and liberty for man all over and absolute equality, then no human progress is going to be possible. Labour has not forgotten its own struggle in this country. It has not forgotten that only a very short while ago people in Britain were living under conditions of most miserable economic slavery, while only 70 years ago in the pits of England there were women doing work as pit ponies. And it is less than that since boys of seven years of age were taken to work. There was no freedom but absolute slavery. The masses of our people have only been winning emancipation very slowly. We realise that labour everywhere, regardless of colour or the differences of language, must travel together. There are two courses open to the hon. Gentleman opposite and his Office. Our colonial policy must either express the old spirit of tyranny and slavery or the new spirit of freedom and equality. We want the latter. We want it partly because it is expedient—we believe it will make for the stability and peace of the world—but we want it mainly because we believe it is right.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: I listened with a considerable amount of interest to the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat. If he expresses the views of the Labour party here, I can assure him that if he made that speech in Australia he certainly would not win the Labour selection there, nor do I think that he would in South Africa. He states that he does not stand above, but by the side of the black. The white Australia policy was brought in by the Labour party and has been maintained there ever since, and we have never found any reason why we should make any amendment. The Labour man who goes out to Australia, when he comes into touch with various problems, takes a different view of the question than the man who has but a mere academic knowledge at home. Many of our Labour friends who have gone from here, men who have worked in the mines, men like Andrew Fisher and Hughes, who have sprung
from the ranks, are the men who have been responsible for the white Australia policy.

Mr. LAWSON: We drove them away from here.

Sir N. MOORE: They went out there, and starting from scratch, rose to the highest position, put there by their fellow workers, and they are men who have done credit, not only to their own country, but to the Empire generally.

Earl WINTERTON: They fought in the War and were not Bolshevists.

7.0 P.M.

Sir N. MOORE: I take the opportunity of congratulating the hon and gallant Gentleman in charge of these Estimates for the very lucid and concise way in which he dealt with the very complex question of exchange and currency in East Africa, but I regret that it was found necessary to deal at such great length with it in order to bring the matter under his notice, and which will have the result that many parsons very anxious to speak on various subjects, of which perhaps they know something, will be prevented owing to the time limit. I take the opportunity of recording on behalf of those of us who have been brought into touch with the Colonial Office a high measure of appreciation of the administrative skill, practical sympathy and tact which distinguishes the hon. Member's regime at the Colonial Office, where he has fulfilled for a considerable time the dual position of Minister and Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and has won for himself the esteem and confidence of the overseas representative. I have every reason to believe that I am expressing their views in paying this small tribute to a very hard worked Minister who has a most important department to preside over. Before, however, referring to the items in this Vote I would like to take the opportunity of expressing on behalf of a large number of residents from overseas appreciation of' the action of the Government in their redemption of promises made by a previous Chancellor in connection with the duplication of the income tax within the Empire. The hardship and the anomalies of the situation have been evident to all thinking Members. Apart from the hardship on the individual in making him pay a double tax in direct war contributions, it has
necessitated a severe strain on the bonds of patriotism and of Empire unity. There is a grievance I want to refer to. It is the increased rate of postage, and I would draw the special attention of the Under-Secretary to it. The late Sir John Henniker Heaton, one time Member for Canterbury, devoted the whole of his life and energy to the institution of imperial penny postage. The recent Budget proposals, increasing postage, I fear, would suffice to make him turn in his grave. I am aware that the State cannot afford to have a postal service that is other than self-supporting. At the same time, I would urge a sympathetic revision of postal rates.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir F. Banbury): We are now upon the Vote for the Colonial Office. I cannot understand what the Budget has to do with it.

Sir N. MOORE: I take it, it is the only opportunity I shall have of introducing a matter of this kind, and some latitude has been given to the discussion of the Colonial Office Vote. I hope that on some other occasion there will be an opportunity of bringing this important question again before the House. It is a real hardship to those who have gone overseas and still have connections in this country. A grant which comes within the Vote of the Colonial Office is the £500,000 provided for settlement of soldiers overseas, free passages for ex-service men, women, and their dependents. That sum, I understand, will be expended under the direction of the Overseas Settlement Committee, of which the hon. and gallant Member is the Chairman. The expenditure is, in my opinion, well justified, especially in view of the fact that it is safeguarded by the proviso that all those who are anxious to settle within the Empire must first be approved by those who represent the Agricultural Settlement Schemes of the various Governments and must be going to assured work beyond the seas. I am glad also to know that this privilege will be extended to the wives and dependents of ex-service men. I understand that this scheme is to be restricted, that it will include applications received at any time up to December, 1920, or one year from date of release from service. That will mean, with the shortage of shipping to Australia and New Zealand, that very few will be able to take advantage of the privilege. I would
suggest that the privilege be extended to some later period. In this respect Canada is much more fortunate, in view of the fact that shipping facilities are greater. It is apparent that large numbers of ex-service men desire to emigrate. That is borne out by the large number of applications made to the various Overseas representatives. The desire to go abroad is undoubtedly largely due to the fact that these men have been in association during the War with comrades from beyond the seas and also to some extent to the fact that Service life has created a desire to follow some open-air occupation. Many men hitherto engaged in sedentary work are reluctant to go back to their old jobs, and in many instances the same applies to women.
On Friday last in the "Times" there was an intimation that no fewer than 8,000 ex-officers were unemployed in London. That should bring home to each and every one of us the fact that we should do everything we can to enable them to emigrate and make their homes within the Empire. The War has indisputably proved that even when the Britisher emigrates to outposts of the Empire, he maintains his unquenchable love for the Mother Land. Among the first to volunteer when the War broke out, alike in Canada, in Australia and in New Zealand, were the emigrants from Great Britain, and their imperishable deeds as fighting men have thrown a mantle of glory over the country of their adoption. Let us not forget that those countries have given the best of their manhood to the fight for civilisation, and that they have also pledged their children's children with a huge debt for war material and equipment. Sixty thousand Australians have laid down their lives. These young men were the flower of their country, and the loss of them is incalculable in a land where every man is needed in connection with the primary industries, in order to increase production and to meet heavy indebtedness incurred through the War. For this reason, if for no other, the Government and Parliament must not only take a sympathetic view in regard to emigration, but co-operate with the Dominion Governments in giving financial assistance to enable men and their wives to be transported to those parts of the Empire where they wish to settle. It is certain that many thousands of men have deter-
mined to go abroad. Unless facilities are given them to enable them to settls within the Empire, they will go to countries outside the Empire. £500,000 is provided for this particular purpose, but when it is remembered that a passage now costs something like £36 per head, as against £12 per head before the War, it will be realised that the half million of money is not going to provide for a very large number of people. Emigration was practically at a standstill during the War. The average emigration before the War was something like 300,000 per annum. Allowing for casualties of a million, it means that in the ordinary way there would be 500,000 who are now anxious to go abroad.
Quite recently I had the opportunity of visiting some of the West Indies, as well as Canada and other places. One hon. Member has referred to the difficulty associated with the provision of freeholds for natives. I think that those who have any knowledge of Jamaica will agree that there the position has been dealt with well. There are something like 60,000 freeholders in Jamaica out of a population of 800,000. The freeholds range from about a quarter of an acre to 10 acres, up to as much as 100 acres. While they cannot go in for closer settlement in the particular portion of the Empire referred to, that is, Rhodesia, there is no reason why legislation should not provide for the natives securing freeholds of their own if they are willing to work. In connection with the visit to Canada, I had the opportunity of judging the effect of the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who indeed proved himself an Ambassador of Empire. After receiving an enthusiastic welcome in the West Indies and the Pacific, His Royal Highness has now arrived in New Zealand, where he is being offered again demonstrations of affection and universal tributes of loyalty such as he received in Canada. As part of a policy to cement the scattered portions of the Empire, it was a happy inspiration which prompted whoever was responsible in inducing the Prince of Wales to make this visit. I feel sure that it will do much to bind closer the ties of Empire. One point I want to emphasise. No one would attempt to dispute the fact that when the call came, our brothers overseas offered their help, their treasure and their lives willingly in the cause of freedom. Now
that the War is over they look to the predominant partner, to whom they are cemented by the closest ties, to stand by them in peace as it stood by them in war. I refer particularly to the recent critical position. So far as Australia and the other Dominions are concerned, they realise that in regard to France we are bound to do everything we possibly can to give her support in the present crisis.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The speeches to-day emphasise the fact that our Colonial policy is a particularly wide subject and that everyone could speak for an hour on it, were he allowed to do so. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down began with a violent attack on my hon. Friend (Mr. Spoor) because the Labour party in England is not anti-colour. Would he really prefer the sort of Labour party they had in Australia to the sort of Labour party they have here? Does he really want a Labour party which persistently cuts the throat of any competition with itself from any sort of coloured man, which persistently insists on the superiority of the white and the inferiority of the black? Is that his idea of culture or civilisation, or even of Christianity?

Sir N. MOORE: I say that is the ideal of the Labour party.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: He prefers that to a Labour party based upon internationalism. But I believe that in this House still you will find a majority who prefer the Labour party as we see it in this country to the Labour party which the hon. and gallant Member enjoys in Australia. The majority of the speeches we have had to-day emphasise the fact also that the business of a Colonial Empire is somehow to make the nigger work. Wherever you look in speeches to-night the main subject is, how can we induce the native to work?

Mr. JESSON: He will become extinct if he does not.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Suppose we permit him graciously to work on his own land, in his own way, and to produce what he wants for himself. In that case he might not be so anxious to work for a master, but he might at the same time produce sufficient to keep himself and his family in comfort. The whole point is that in our British Empire we do contem-
plate the native developing himself and his own land, building up his own civilisation, and in other parts of the Empire we regard the native merely as a beast of burden, who should be divorced from the soil as quickly as possible. Those two rival methods are going on at the present time in the British Empire. Along the Gold Coast, generally speaking, and in Sierra Leone and Nigeria, and particularly Northern Nigeria, we have tried to build up a system whereby the native himself develops the land and becomes the producer and exporter on an ever increasing scale. There the White does not go in to acquire great tracts of land and to expropriate and force the native to work for him. Over most of the British West African Colonies we are gradually building up what I believe in the future will be a self-governing dominion in the British Empire. The people are acquiring our culture without any of the disasters of being first of all exploited in order to be taught the dignity of labour. What we have done there is probably the finest thing we have done in the whole of our relations with the coloured races of the world. None of the other countries—Germany, France or Belgium—have attempted to do what we have done there. We have built up a monument of what the white man can do when he allows the black to develop himself. The palm kernel and other trade of Northern Nigeria is in native hands and has developed enormously of late years, partly owing to the services of Sir Frederick Lugarde, and partly owing to the services of Mr. E. D. Morrel, and partly, I hope, owing to my own. At any rate, you have there in Northern Nigeria a system of land tenure and of government through native administration which has worked peacably all through the troubles of the War, although the bulk of the population consists of fanatical Mohammedans. The revenue has increased, and railways have been built; and we were not required to pay a penny piece by way of subsidy. I do join with the Noble Lord, the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) in asking that the very best terms should be given to the public officials in Northern Nigeria who are a class of civil servants who, I am convinced, are doing not only the hardest work, but the best service possible to the British Empire.
It is necessary to emphasise the difference between what we call the African
system which has been adopted in developing the West Coast and the European system which has been adopted on the East Coast of Africa, because the two are fundamentally different. The West African system has been a success, but there are signs unfortunately, plenty of them, in the present Colonial Office government of the East African European development system being now transplanted to the West Coast, so that there too the native may not be allowed to work for himself, but forced by the deprivation of his land to work for a master. The signs of it on the West Coast are, of course, the export duties on kernels and other produce of the land. That is the thin end of the wedge of taxation without representation, not in the interests of the people of the Colony, but in the interests of the manufacturers of this country. Under the old administration of the Colonial Office under Lord Harcourt, the principle was always adopted of governing these places solely for the advantage of the people who lived in the country, the natives, and not in order to benefit manufacturers or exploiters in this country. That is now changed, I will not say altogether, but a beginning has been made in imposing these export duties in the interests of the manufacturers of this country. It is a bad beginning. The Banchi lease of land for agricultural purposes is another sign in the same direction. In Nyasaland, the new export duties are another beginning of this new system of governing the Crown Colonies, not, as has been the case in the past, in the interests of the natives, but in the interests of European exploitation. Let us leave Nigeria and the West Coast, and look at British East Africa, Nyassaland and, I am afraid, the great new Colony of Tanganyika. There you have an entirely different system introduced. You have every pressure being brought to bear to deprive the natives of their land and by special taxation to force those natives to work for a master. Even the deprivation of their lands and the special poll tax levied have not been enough, and we have this wonderful Ainsworth circular devising still further means to compel the native to work.
The Labour party appointed a year ago an advisory committee to go into the Colonial policy of the Labour Ministry if and when it is ever formed. They have
drawn up a programme in detail after hearing eminent and expert evidence. So far as the West Coast is concerned they wish to continue along the present lines and to develop the native administration, and gradually, whenever possible, to introduce into it an element of representation, particularly in local government, in places such as Lagos, so that out of native administration, very largely an autocratic local administration now, you may develop on to more representative government. So far as land system and labour they will carry on the existing system and leave the land in the communal tenure of the natives where it is so, or, as in Northern Nigeria, secure the native individual tenure, and give him that right of permanent tenure which has done so much to develop the province, coupled with a rent which is based on the unimproved value of the land, and which rises as the land becomes more valuable. So far as East Africa is concerned, they will have nothing whatever to do with the present system of exploitation. We say, and in this I hoped we had the agreement of Mr. Ainsworth, that the first thing is to get the reserves demarcated so that those are large enough, not only for the present, but for any possible expansion of the native population, and, above all, that the reserves shall be so demarcated that there can be no longer this eternal pressure brought to bear by the white settlers to keep the reserves down. I observe that the white settlers' point of view, and that of the officials, is stated perfectly frankly, and it is diametrically opposed to ours. They advocate that a special commission should be appointed to delimit the reserves and to devise a scheme for concentrating the natives in a number of areas distributed as widely as possible throughout the reserve, and sufficient, but not more than sufficient, for their requirements.. They state they are convinced that this method will be conducive to the general welfare of native and European alike by permitting contact between them and stimulating the education of the native and increasing the labour available for scientific production besides immensely increasing the yield of the land. Beautiful, but interested you will admit, their idea being to teach the native the beauty of labour. They are not confining their views on labour to the men, for women and children are equally to be educated
in the virtues of labour. Any chief who does not send in native labour will be reported upon. Unfortunately for this Committee we are having this Debate without the exact wording of Mr. Ainsworth's circular before us. It is in the Colonial Office, but it cannot be produced. It is difficult to produce such a circular to the House of Commons and even to such a House of Commons as this. At the same time we have the advantage of the comments of the Bishop of Uganda and the Bishop of Mombassa upon this circular. I do wish to say if I have ever commented severely on the efforts of bishops as a whole or in particular as to the legislation of this country I withdraw those criticisms absolutely so far as these two excellent bishops are concerned. They have had the moral courage to denounce what was popular throughout the country in which they lived. They say:
When native chiefs are charged with the business of recruiting labour the door is flung wide open to almost any abuse. In the words of the circular, 'the necessity for an increased supply of labour cannot be brought too frequently before the various native authorities. They are to be reminded that it is part of their duty to advise and encourage all unemployed young men in the areas under their jurisdiction to go out and work on the plantation'.
Women and children are also to be used for this form of labour. The bishops very rightly protest that if women and children are sent on to the plantations you may get very deplorable moral conditions. What can be said for a system which proposes that native women and children should go on to the plantations where they are housed like hop-pickers in Kent, and where desertion is punished as a criminal offence, and where the punishments imposed by the managers of the plantations are such as could not be contemplated in this country, and where you have helpless native population unrepresented in any way in the Government of the country? This Ainsworth circular has been introduced into the British Empire before. I would like to call the attention of the Under-Secretary to the previous use of this circular which was introduced into Bhodesia in 1911. It was found unworkable there and the chiefs and settlers came to the conclusion that semi-compulsory labour, such as this, could not be carried on. But since they have seen this circular introduced into East Africa they
are asking in Rhodesia, "Why should we not have it too?" and the settlers are now recommending its re-introduction into Rhodesia with the same method of coercing the chiefs into providing labour for the benefit of the settlers. The Labour party policy is quite clear. We will have no slavery or sham slavery whatsoever. We will reserve for the natives their own land for them to cultivate, so that if they prefer to remain cultivating their own land they will not be driven to work for somebody else. They may be tempted to do so if the wages offered are higher, but as long as they remain as they are to-day no self-respecting native would be so tempted. The natural law of supply and demand has got to regulate the labour supply.
I know the difficulties of the present Colonial Office in dealing with these settlers in East Africa. It is true there are only 2,000 adult male settlers in that country, but they are an extremely noisy section. They have threatened over and over again to secede from the British Empire if we will not give them their way, and the Colonial Office is a little nervous. I do not think they need be nervous. There are not really enough of them to cause much trouble, but it is vital that the Colonial Office should consider the interests of all the people in East Africa, and not merely of the white settlers. Hitherto in this Ainsworth Circular and in their action on the currency question they have considered only the pressure of the white settler. In this economic report and all its monstrous attacks upon the Indian population, with its suggestions of different ways in which the natives can be exploited, only the settler element is represented. I do not know whether there is an official or not, but I think they are all settlers, and, anyway, there is nobody representing native interests. In spite of the Ainsworth Circular, I see there is very severe criticism upon Mr. Ainsworth himself. That is not the way in which East Africa will ever be got to pull together or will ever be developed. We have not only to consider the interests of the settlers, but of the two or three million natives, and also of the 15,000 or 20,000 Indians in that country. Of course, when you have a country like that developing, it is very difficult to know how far it has got to be wet-nursed by the Colonial Office.
To begin with, the Colonial Office has to do everything, but it gradually drops its interference, and the local administration takes more and more hand in the Government. The Colonial Office has got to interfere in the early stages, but gradually it must slacken its hold on these colonies, and the tendency always is to hand over control to the white settlers. The Labour party view is that control has got to be handed over to the representatives of the whole of the community, and not merely to the white settlers. Last year, all unknown to Parliament, a constitution was given to East Africa by the Colonial Office. They gave representative government to all the whites in that country, but no votes whatever were given to Indians, even to educated Indians or propertied Indians, or to educated natives. The franchise was confined strictly to the white population, and the policy of the Labour party has been laid down to give the franchise not only to the whites, but also an educational franchise to anybody who is an Indian or a native who might qualify for it, and not on special lists, not so that they may have one or two special representatives, but so that everybody who stands for the new Council at Nairobi should have to go to an Indian elector or a native elector and ask for their votes, even though he be a white man; and that, of course, is the only way in which you can get community of interests instead of the rivalry between different communal representatives. That is the policy that has been laid down for East Africa, and that is the policy, generally speaking, that we lay down for any colony where there is a mixed white and black population. There must be no permanent colour bar, no permanent separation of the races. By all means, make your educational tests stiff, so that at first the whites are not swamped by uneducated people of another race, but they must have a chance of coming in, and only then can the Colonial Office throw off its responsibility for the natives in these colonies, and allow the colonies to look after themselves and manage their own business.
The question before us really is this: is the British Empire going to be purely a white Commonwealth, spreading all over the world, but confining its citizenship to white people, or are you going to follow the wider plan of absorbing into the British Commonwealth all the races
who can be absorbed and who are willing to be absorbed into it? Is India to be part of the British Commonwealth, or are the Indians to have no reason for remaining part of Britain whatever? Are they going to have British citizenship on the same lines as we have it, or are they going to be excluded? Soon they will be a self-governing Dominion of the Empire. Is it possible to conceive that as such they will go on submitting always to the sort of disabilities that we impose upon them in East Africa, or that the South African Dominion imposes upon them in South Africa? They can deal with South Africa themselves, but their question to us will be, "What inducement do you hold out to us to remain part of the British Empire? If we are not to be treated as other British citizens are treated, we will go outside the British Empire "; and you will have in India what you already seen in Egypt, a tendency not to become a self-governing unit within the British Commonwealth, but a tendency to separate off, just as Ireland asks to separate off to-day. I want to see Egypt and India and Ireland all part of the British Commonwealth. That is impossible as long as there is a colour bar, as long as there are distinctions drawn between one British citizen and another. The Labour party stand for the wider view of Empire—an Empire extending to all the world, whoever will come into it, extending to all colours, to all classes, and to all people, and that is the British Empire which we are out for. We are not Little Englanders. We do not want to see a Commonwealth composed of one colour and one class, but the wider ideal is our ideal, and the turning point has now come in the Colonial Office.

Mr. BIGLAND: I wish to rise to voice on behalf of some of my Friends one or two views with regard to this Vote, and I am only grieved that the discussion has closed so quickly. We should very much like to have it continued another day. The principal item in the Vote is this one of £500,000, which is provided for Overseas Settlement. I congratulate the Secretary of State for the Colonies on that happy expression, " Overseas Settlement," rather than emigration, which, in some way, rather stinks in the nostrils of English people. I would make the suggestion that, in addition to this wide view that they take in regard to Overseas Settlement, we in this House and the
people of this country should take the view that it will be absolutely necessary in the days to come for a certain number of our sons and daughters to leave this country for Overseas Settlements, and I would suggest to the Under-Secretary for the Colonies that he take counsel with the Minister of Education as to whether it would not be possible for a special course of three or four years' study to be given to our young men and women who desire to emigrate, that they may be fitted to take places in the Colonial work of this Empire, and that these free overseas passages, which are now given to the soldiers who have served in the War, may be extended to those who take certificates after a course of study, eminently proving that they are fitted to take part in our Colonial work abroad. Many of us in this House, who last Session rather pushed the Under-Secretary to form a Committee to investigate the development of Empire resources, want to thank him that he was as good as his word, and we notice with pleasure that a Committee has already been set up with this object, namely:
to enquire into the opportunities of economic development, to make recommendations as to the principles and methods to be followed in such development, and to examine and report on any particular schemes and suggestions which may be submitted to them.
I am glad to know, too, that two Members of this House have been put upon that Committee, and I want to assure the Under-Secretary that many of us here are exceedingly pleased with this line of action on the part of the Government, so much so that a group of Members called upon me and asked me whether I would become the Chairman of an Empire Development Committee, which I agreed with pleasure to do. I met men so full of enthusiasm on this great subject of Empire development that I was amazed, and so largely has it taken hold that I am sure the Under-Secretary will be delighted to know that to-night we have 145 Members of this House who are all pleased to join in the work of our Empire Development Committee. I can assure him that where his Department undertakes well-considered and well-thought out enterprises in regard to the development of the Empire, these 145 Members will stand behind him, and he can have confidence in going forward with this great work of developing our Empire to know that in the House of Commons itself there are
men who will bring him ideas and suggestions and schemes as well as backing up the schemes that he himself proposes to the country. I regret that I have not more time in which to develop many of the points I should like to have raised, but in deference to the request made to me that I would be very short, I will bring my remarks to a close by saying, in regard to Lord Milner and the Under-Secretary, that we have every confidence that they view the great responsibility of this Empire development work and that they will continue it in every possible way. I again wish to say that I trust the Government will give a further day to this great question of the consideration of the Colonial Office Vote.

Major-General SEELY: I rise only to put two questions to the Under-Secretary of State, and first on the big question which has been raised as to the real object of our government of our great Dependencies. There are two different views which have been very clearly stated in the course of the Debate, and one of them very clearly by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor). If you leave out his references to a capitalist system, I imagine there is not one word of what he said with which most people in the Colonial Office will not agree. When I held the position which the hon. arid gallant Gentleman now holds—one of the most interesting positions a man can hold—for four years before the War, the policy of the Colonial Office was the policy, first of all, that indentured labour of all kinds was to go, and I want a very definite statement on this point from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I think he will be glad to give it. Is the policy of the Colonial Office the same as it was during the time that I have referred to, the same as it has been, at any rate, up to the War, namely, that indentured labour of all kinds should go, whether veiled under the term of forced labour or whether by means of an indenture ordinance? Is it the policy to give the maximum of freedom to the labourer? Secondly, does my hon. and gallant Friend accept the view that our object in all these countries—in East Africa, West Africa, or elsewhere—is not the benefit of any particular body of speculators or financiers, although they all have their rights, but for the benefit of the inhabitants as a whole, even although the
great majority may be of another colour from ourselves. Special reference has been made to-day to the Ainsworth Circular and the Trinidad Labour Ordinance, and I agree those two things taken together would seem to indicate a change of policy on the part of the Colonial Office. But I do not believe that is so, and I am sure the House as a whole will rejoice to hear from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the whole policy of the Colonial Office, which has held good for the last 20 years, that we govern for the benefit of the population and natives as a whole, and that indentured labour should go, still stands.
Next, I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he will please remember—I am sure he will—that there has been a war, and that a great many people in our Dominions fought very hard; that as a result of the War we have got a very much bigger Empire than we had before; that we should not have an Empire at all if we had lost the War; and that in the vast patronage which lies with the Colonial Office, although I agree he must consider the claims of those who have been in the service before, he will not turn a deaf ear to those well-qualified persons who apply to him for responsible posts in his Department. Those are the questions I rise to ask, and I hope we shall have a satisfactory answer, especially on the first question.

Mr. JESSON: First of all I wish to associate myself with everything that has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member. I think we ought to determine the question on the lines of self-government, and I believe we are doing that as an Empire. It is all very well for us in this country to talk about the colour line. We are not affected by this, as they are in America, where they do not look upon the coloured man exactly as the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite does. That is one of the problems we have to face. In Australia the workers have decided that they will have a white Australia, and we have no right to interfere. But when it comes to the administering of affairs in the Colonial Office, we get a totally different spirit from what they have in America or Australia. The point I want to make is this, as against what was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor). He spoke as if everything we did in regard to the natives was in order to exploit them. That is not so.
Last year there was a deputation in this country from British Guiana. They wanted to get the assistance of the Colonial Office to bring natives from India, where there is tremendous overcrowding, and get them settled in British Guiana, where the climate is much the same and where the facilities for production are extraordinary. They offered to give them free passages, or assist them, and to give them free grants of land, to help them in cultivating the land, and marketing their produce. That does not look like exploitation. I understand the British Government would have given assistance had it not been for shipping difficulties. That does not look as if we are out as a Colonial Office to exploit the native.
Another point we have to consider is that we as a country are not self-supporting. We have to import practically all our raw materials, with the exception of coal. One of the things in which we are interested, particularly in Lancashire, is cotton. In the past we have been getting the bulk of our cotton from America. The American market is now being closed because America wants practically all the cotton she can produce for herself, and we have to get that cotton from somebody else. We are trying to get it in the Empire, and by encouraging natives to work for themselves, as in British Guiana. There is nothing in the way of exploitation there. Supposing—and it is a fact—that these native races do not work or will not work, they die out. Supposing we had in this country a number of young men and young women who would not work, what would you do? Would you say they must not be coerced; that they must not be penalised in any way

Colonel WEDGWOOD: These natives have plenty of opportunity of working, if they are allowed to remain in reserves.

Mr. JESSON: I am talking of natives who refuse to work, particularly male natives who exploit the labour of their women. If we had the same kind of thing here they would have to put up with the consequences if they did not work. There is nothing wrong in encouraging the native to work on the lines; he has brought it about himself. There are a good many points I should like to raise, especially the question of power alcohol being raised in the Empire, the question
of our fish supply, and many other questions which would be of enormous assistance to the workers of this country, but time does not permit. I only wish to associate myself with what has fallen from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland) as to the good work which has been done by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I must begin with a very sincere apology to the Committee for the time I took up before. I was not in the House when the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) obtained leave to move the adjournment, and that this Debate was to come to a conclusion at a quarter past eight, or I certainly would not have spoken at such length. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) criticised the extravagance of the Colonial Office, more particularly for spending all this money on overseas settlement. I do not propose to deal with that matter now. It has been dealt with, and I think satisfactorily answered by one of the speakers, and I dealt with the whole subject very fully on the Supplementary Estimates a short time ago.
The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) raised the question of leave conditions in Nigeria. I can assure him I do very much appreciate the importance of this question in view of the unhealthy conditions in West Africa. The whole object of the Leave Committee, which included two distinguished retired members of the West African Civil Service, was to introduce more satisfactory leave conditions. They purposely advocated making those conditions more elastic so that those who live in the least healthy districts or are personally in bad health should be given a larger measure of leave when required. As regards pay, I hope things will be put right in a very short time, and that I shall be able to announce new conditions of pay in the West African Service.
Another point about West Africa of great interest was raised by the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip), as to whether we were not going too far in our consideration for Moslem sentiment. It is a very difficult question indeed. We are under Treaty obligations to the various Moslem chiefs not to interfere with their religion, and it is undoubtedly true that the sending of white
missionaries, who are very much identified with the Government, into a Moslem centre to preach Christianity would look as if the Government were deliberately behind Christian propaganda. It is very difficult to know exactly where to draw the limits, or how long you ought to go before you consider a population like that can reasonably be expected to welcome a missionary in their midst. If it is true, as my hon. Friend suggests, that there are pagan districts in which we put difficulties in the way of Christian missionaries, I should be very glad of any information he can give me, for certainly our policy all through, except in Moslem districts, is that we wish their educational and Christianising work to continue. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland raised the question of Trinidad. Undoubtedly, as he knows, there has been very serious trouble, riots and outbreaks in Trinidad, and, in view of the very dangerous situation, I do not think he can complain of the Government taking measures to put some sort of check on seditious propaganda deliberately advocating lawlessness, because there is no check on ordinary constitutional propaganda in Trinidad. As regards the actual industrial situation there, he may be aware that a special Wages Committee, on which employed as well as employers have been represented, have been going, district by district, into the whole question of the relation of wages to present conditions, and I think in most cases with satisfactory results.
I come to the main points of discussion which attack the whole policy and principle on which the Colonial Office is administered, and I should like to say straight away that there is not any departure in the principles of the Government and Colonial Office in the administration of subject territory. Our policy is exactly what it was before, that we govern these colonies, not in the interest of this country, not in the interest of any one section of population, but in the interest of every section of the population.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then why not give votes in East Africa to Indians and natives?

8.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I am coming to that. All people who do live and can live there, and develop their welfare there, are equally entitled to the con-
sideration and care of the Colonial Office. And certainly I can also answer the other question as to any form of compulsory or indentured labour. Our policy there has not been changed. As a matter of fact we have made considerable progress. Indentured labour was last year abolished in Fiji, and within the last few weeks in British Guiana, and it only exists now, I think, in one or two of the West Indian Colonies, and there it is due for extinction very shortly, when there will be no indenture labour in any part of the British Empire under the Colonial Office. Another question was why, after the War, we should not, in the Colonial Service, consider the appointment of ex-service men, not excluding those coming from the Dominions. I have been at particular pains to try to get any Dominion officers into the Colonial Service, and I think we have got some very good men into the service.

Earl WINTERTON: How does the hon and gallant Gentleman get them? What steps are taken to make it clear that ex-officers of the Dominion armies can obtain work in the Colonial Service?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Well, means have been taken both in regard to the universities, where a good many Dominion young ex-officers have been studying since the war, and also we received very valuable help from the Imperial Education Committee and from Colonel Lascelles, a New Zealand officer on that Committee, who I believe took particular pains to bring the matter to the notice of Dominion ex-officers through the various representatives of the Dominion education systems who were in London till quite recently.
Let me briefly deal with the native reserves of Rhodesia in reply to the questions by the hon. Member for Central Bristol. I do hope we shall now be able to give to this matter that finality that he desires. There has been delay arising from the fact that certain points have been raised which we hope now to settle satisfactorily. Let me say, in the first place, that the whole of the changes that have taken place, with two exceptions, have met with general approval. The natives have themselves acquiesced and are carrying out the changes willingly, entirely without any complaint. There has been no complaint from anyone except in these two
cases. The numbers affected in these two reserves, the Chiduku Reserve and the Sabi Reserve, is 2,000 in the one case and three or four thousand in the other. As regards the latter the main point of objection seems to be the taking out of the reserve a narrow strip of land for a railway 12 miles wide. There was a very natural reason in favour of this in the fact that the white settler needs the railway more than the natives, because he has his goods brought to him over it and sends them away by it. There is also the point of view of the revenue of the country, because the white man uses the railway much more. It has been suggested by the missionaries and other interested that this strip may interfere with some of the more populous old kraals in that part, the area of which is 290,000 acres out of 1½ millions. We have been in communication with the High Commissioner, and he is perfectly prepared to consider how far steps can be taken to mitigate any possible hardship in that respect. We do not want to make the reserves other than secure for the whole of those natives who wish to live under tribal conditions, and in living under those conditions are free in a way in which no one in this country is free from that economic slavery to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. He is not in any sense obliged to do anything except to cultivate his own land as far as he needs just to sustain his own existence; and the fact that there are always the reserves to go to makes it impossible for the Rhodesian farmer to ask for exorbitant terms from any native who lives on his lands as tenant or labourer. I believe this House can with confidence endorse the very high testimony of Lord Buxton to the native administration of Rhodesia and the attitude of the civil population generally towards the natives. It is a model, not only in Africa, but for any part of the world where you have the very difficult problem of the white settler living side by side with the native.
I now come to the Ainsworth Circular. We have every right, I quite agree, to be watchful and anxious whenever anything is done in any part of our Dominions to suggest the possibility or the danger of compulsion, direct or veiled, being applied to the natives. But I would point out that there is nothing in this circular—
framed by an official to whom my hon. and gallant Friend opposite paid such high testimony, and who has always been a friend of the native—there is nothing in the actual wording that necessarily involves anything beyond advice or encouragement to work or discouragement to be idle.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then why will you not let us see it?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I will come to that. It is quite natural and reasonable that in dealing with any circular which involves giving advice to the native chiefs or giving advice to the chiefs to give to their followers that we should be anxious lest there should be, in fact, though not in intention, compulsion. My hon. Friend referred to Rhodesia. There, I believe, a result of a not quite identical, but somewhat similar policy was that in one or two cases undue pressure was used and the policy discontinued. Anxiety in this respect was expressed by the Bishops, though they approved in general terms of the policy.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Their letter begins by saying, "We are in entire accord with the main purpose of the Memorandum." But they did express the fear that the chiefs might use a form of compulsion which they thought could only be safely entrusted to Government officials. I may say that I have received a copy of this circular unofficially, though I am till waiting for the copy which has been on its way from East Africa, and which will contain the acting Governor's comment on the actual carrying out of the policy. But I confess that when I first heard of it I felt some anxiety. The Secretary of State shared the same anxiety as myself. But we have had a long discussion on the- whole subject with Sir Edward Northey, the Governor, who is here, and he has made it quite clear to us that whatever may be the interpretation of the circular at this end, compulsion was not his intention out there. He was dealing anxiously for many months with the problem of the demoralisation of the natives in the reserves as well as outside created by post-War conditions, not of natives who work their own plots, but of the young idle natives who are neither working their own plots nor working for anybody else.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a question of wages?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: He made it quite clear that there was no idea of pressure to be brought to bear on the natives working in their own reserves for themselves. There was no intention of forcing women and children to do anything other than that which would be akin to hop-picking in this country, i.e., pick coffee in the immediate vicinity of the reserves, to which they can always return the same day. In any case he insisted that the native commissioners are there, and their purpose is to see that the native chiefs did not go beyond purely lawful persuasion. He has no objection to sending out a further circular to the native commissioners making these points quite clear, and putting it beyond doubt that the object of his policy is not compulsion to work for white employers, but only the discouragement of idleness. He also made clear to us that his policy in this respect was only part of a general policy of improving labour conditions so as to make work more attractive to the natives. At the same time as this circular was issued a Masters' and Servants' Ordinance was passed, under which inspectors of labour were established whose particular task it is to see that contracts between employers and the men are properly observed, and to take up the interests of the native labourer as against the employer, and to see that the labourer is properly housed and paid and sent to hospital when necessary at the employer's expense. Another object of the Governor's policy is to secure that proper compensation should be paid to natives for accidents. In all these ways I submit that the policy of the East African Government is not in any way reactionary, but is a progressive policy We have to face a very difficult problem in dealing with education and development of the natives. It is not enough to say that economic inducements alone will bring the native to see the advantages of work and of raising his standard of living. There are some native races, the American Red Indians, for instance, or many of the splendid tribes in Polynesia, who have shown no inclination to take any interest in any form of economic development, and who, for this very reason, have tended to die out. I quite agree that the most desirable form of work is that where the native is an active and willing
cultivator or worker on his own, and for his own direct profit. But it is no injury to him if he should work for a certain number of weeks or months in the year as a labourer for others—not, of course, under compulsion. Whatever may be said against the industrial system in this country—it has had very great defects in the past, and in the present, too—who can deny that the skilled working man of this country has gained enormously in intelligence, knowledge and self-confidence by the skill which he has acquired under the industrial system. In all these matters progress is a matter of great difficulty. We have to maintain, and the Colonial Office will maintain, the general principles on which it has aways proceeded in looking after the interests of the people committed to its charge. We have to deal with the actual facts before us, and deal with them to the best of our ability.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What about representation in East Africa?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: At this moment there is no representative or responsible government for East Africa. The unofficial members on the council are there in a purely advisory capacity, and it makes no essential difference for this purpose whether they are elected or non-elected members. If you took the new franchise in India and conferred it on the Indians in East Africa you would only get the very smallest fraction of them entitled to vote, and for the present, at any rate, we believe the best form of representation will be found in the three nominated members, Indian and Arab, who are taking part in the East African Legislative Council. They are men who know the interests of their particular community; they have defended them with ability and skill, and we do not see at the present moment that it is in the interests of any section of East Africa to have an indiscriminate and uniform franchise, entirely ignoring the whole difference of past traditions and experience between the different races. I am afraid I have not been able to answer adequately in the time at my disposal, many of the interesting points which have been raised.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I hope we shall keep this Vote alive, in order that we may resume the discussion.

It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

CRIME IN IRELAND.

Lord R. CECIL: I beg to move, " That this House do now adjourn."
I want to call attention to the continuous growth of crime and disorder in Ireland. I do not think any hon. Member of this House, in whatever part of it he sits, will think that a Motion of this kind is out of place at the present time. The position is undoubtedly as serious, if not more serious, as any position in Ireland for the past 200 years. I quite admit that in some respects I have very little right to press this upon the House in connection with this matter. I am not an Irishman, I have no Irish property, and no interests at all in Ireland of a pecuniary kind. I am not an Orangeman. I remember when I was standing for Blackburn as a candidate, that the Orange vote was cast against me on the ground that I was a concealed Papist.
I rise to call attention to this matter from an entirely different point of view. I believe that every hon. Member of this House is very proud indeed of British civilisation. I believe that we have accomplished as a nation more in the work of civilisation than any nation in the world, and I believe the great secret on which we have relied, and successfully relied, has been the supremacy of the law. That was the great weapon with which we fought in the old days. I believe it is a great bulwark at the present time against revolution and anarchy and all that involves. The other day an hon. Member opposite described my opinions in this respect as mediaeval. With the greatest respect to the Member for the Falls Division (Mr Devlin), I entirely deny it. I think that the maintenance of the law is what distinguishes the imperfect civilisation of the middle ages from the civilised nation in which we live. It is the great guarantee of liberty, and it is for that reason, and that reason only, that I regard it as the most sacred and most important duty which a Government can possibly carry out in any part of the Dominions committed to its
charge. I am bound to say at the outset of my observations my whole anxiety in this matter is due to the fact that the supremacy of the law no longer exists, even partially, in large districts in Ireland.
I asked a few weeks ago for a return of the crimes giving the number of murders of the Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and civilians, and the number of political outrages since the 1st January, 1919, in Ireland. It was not given in a very illuminating way, but the upshot was that during that period there were thirty-six murders and some seventy or eighty assaults by way of firing at persons, together with a large number of different crimes—assaults, serious assaults, robbery of arms, ammunition and explosives, incendiary fires, injury to property, firing into dwelling-houses, and threatening letters The total was 1,089, and by far the larger part were in the Province of Munster. That was the substance of the Return. But it did not show what is most important of all, namely, that crime has steadily increased during that period. If the figures had been shown month by month it would have been more clear that the more serious crimes had increased very rapidly, and still more rapidly from the date of the announcement by the Prime Minister of the Home Rule Bill. Another thing is this Return does not go beyond the 29th March, and we have since then no official record But I have been supplied with certain figures as to the crimes committed in Ireland in the first three weeks of April. During that period there have been no fewer than sixteen murders. That compared with thirty-six murders in the preceding fifteen months. Sixteen marders in three weeks works out at the rate of something like 250 murders a year, but I am bound to add that, as far as I can see at present, from the records in the public Press, the rate is still rising, and in the last week or so there have been murders practically at the rate of one per day. That, I think, is a terrifically serious figure in itself.
But it is not only the actual figure. It is the nature of the murder which is so serious. I need not remind the House of the murder of the Lord Mayor of Cork. It is quite irrelevant whether that murder was committed, as alleged, by the emissaries of the police, or by emissaries of the Sinn Feiners. Either way it was a
most astounding murder to have been committed in a country supposed to possess a civilised Government. Then there was the murder of Mr. Bell in the streets of Dublin, he having been hauled out of a tramcar in order to be shot. Again, policemen have been shot down in the street, time after time, with numbers of people looking on, yet no one comes forward either to help the man, or to give evidence, or to try and arrest the criminals. There is an absolute collapse of any system of civilisation which guarantees personal safety to the citizens of the country. I do not want to pile up the agony, but I want to read an account of one crime which I do not think has yet appeared in the English Press. It is reported in the "Freeman's Journal" of 5th April, 1920. There was a family in a certain house. They were first alarmed by the noise of shots, and immediately a number of men whose faces were blackened, forced an entry. Some of the visitors carried rifles; others wore female clothing. They brought the inmates of the house out into the yard, and placed them on chairs. One man then ordered the son, young Flynn, to stand up. He did so, and at a distance of four or five yards the raider levelled his rifle and fired at him. The bullet penetrated his left arm and broke it, and entered the abdomen, passing out on the right side. Young Flynn fell, his sister, his mother and his father were terrified spectators. The sister sprang to his assistance, but the raiders prevented her from rendering any aid. When they left, the police and the doctor were summoned and were promptly in attendance. That is a specimen—an extreme specimen I agree—of what is actually going on in a part of the dominions of the British Crown. No arrests were made, no punishment is meted out to the men who commit such outrageous crimes, and that to my mind is the most serious aspect of the whole thing. It is not the sensational crime, it is rather the complete supersession of the ordinary law; it really does not exist.
I have given other instances which hon. Members no doubt have read in the paper of demands for the surrender of land. I am not going into the question whether these are right or wrong. But what happened? A mob comes up to a man and says, "You must give up your land
with or without compensation, or we will shoot you." I read a letter from a clergyman. For obvious reasons I do not propose to give his name or address. In it he says he had been round the village on his clerical duties when he was cornered by a mob and his life threatened unless he gave up his land. He resisted, his cattle were driven off, many were killed or outraged, and the land was taken from him. I have here a similar case in which a tenant was terrified in the same way, and driven to give up his land. In another case a man was taken to the edge of a lake and threatened with drowning until he agreed to what was asked of him. There is still another case. A man was partly nailed down in a coffin. The nails were driven in one by one until ultimately he gave in. The most serious part of all these cases—and there are many of them—is that the authorities are either unable or unwilling—unable I imagine—to give any assistance whatever. Over and over again, people threatened in this way have written to the police, to the county authorities, and even to the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary, asking for police protection, and no police have been sent. I would like to read one or two extracts from a letter:
People are tired of appealing to the county inspector for help, with the invariable reply that he has been wiring to the Castle for help and been refused. This locality was quite peaceable while we had police in the village. The authorities were warned that the conditions would change if the police were withdrawn. They were taken away, and the whole district is now a hell of intimidation and violence. Houses are barricaded at night, and all these people are living in terror of their lives. Our churches are more than half deserted because people fear to leave their houses; our Easter vestries have had to be abandoned for the same reason, and even the children are afraid to go to school.
That is the state of things, and it is one of the most serious symptoms of the complete paralysis of government in large districts in the South and West of Ireland.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Who wrote that letter?

Lord R. CECIL: I cannot tell the House who write that letter—for obvious reasons.

Mr. MacVEAGH: What is the district?

Lord R. CECIL: I cannot give that either, for equally obvious reasons. It
does not, however, rest upon that. The hon Member knows that over these great rural districts the police are being withdrawn and concentrated in the towns. Even there they are not allowed to go out at night, but only during the daytime two or three together, and even then they are not uncommonly shot from some ambush. That, of course, is the explanation of the wholesale destruction of barracks which has been going on. They were all abandoned by the police. In one day 230 barracks were burned down, because there was no one in them to defend them. The result is that the whole of those districts are absolutely without protection. It is little wonder that in those districts not only the criminal law but the civil law also is in abeyanace. No civil process runs. There are, I believe, things which call themselves Sinn Fein Courts, but there are none of the King's Courts in active and effective operation in any of those districts. As happened the other day, during the strike about the prisoners in Mountjoy, the mob takes entire possession of a city or town in Ireland. An interesting account was shown to me by one of my hon. Friends of Waterford absolutely in the hands of a self-elected Committee, who ruled it despotically for a whole day. They did not even allow anyone to ride a bicycle in the streets. That was in a civilised country. I do not know what the explanation is, but I ask what were the military doing, and why was such a gross act of usurpation allowed? Why were the law-abiding subjects of the Crown delivered over to this tyranny, even for 24 hours? It was not the tyranny of the richer classes by an indignant poorer class. On the contrary, nothing is more remarkable than an account I read of the indignation of the poor women and children who were unable to get food, and who cursed the authors of this disaster, from which they were unable to do anything to protect themselves. I am told that the same thing takes place in Cork and other towns. That was only done for 24 hours, but there is no guarantee that it will not be carried out for a longer period if those who are directing the affairs of Ireland at this moment choose so to decree. It is difficult to exaggerate the seriousness of the state of things that exists and the responsibility of the Government of the day for permitting such a state of things.

Mr. J. JONES: Anew Cromwell!

Lord R. CECIL: The hon. Member talks about a "new Cromwell"—

Mr. MacVEAGH: He is talking about the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Kennedy Jones).

Mr. J. JONES: No, about the Gentleman next to you.

Lord R. CECIL: I hope the hon. Member is serious when he makes that kind of observation. If so, may I say to him that there is no class which will suffer from anarchy so much as the class to which he belongs, and it is anarchy that is existing at this moment. The responsibility for it is a different matter, but, whoever is responsible, the evil is terrific. I think there have been very serious mistakes by the Government. In the first place, I am informed that there is no real co-ordination between the soldiers and the police, that there is no use of the soldiers for their proper purpose, which is not as police, but in order to protect the police from violence in the execution of their duty and to repress anything in the nature of riot or disorder. In the second place, it does not appear to be any part of the policy to give adequate protection against threatened violence. The most serious case was the fact that Mr. Bell, although it was perfectly well known that he was in danger, was allowed to go about Dublin, apparently without any protection whatever. In the third place, the Government appear to me to have been guilty of a serious amount of vacillation. I do not want to be misunderstood in what I am about to say. I recognise that, when the prisoners in Mountjoy began to starve themselves, the Government were faced with a very grave and difficult position. What I do say is that they ought to have foreseen that at the outset. If they thought, as they might well have thought, that it was difficult to allow unconvicted prisoners interned on suspicion—because that was all it was, technically, at that time—to die in prison, because they refused food, then the Government ought not to have used the language they did use in reference to the release of those prisoners. I cannot help feeling that the result has been still further to weaken the executive authority of the Government in Ireland, in a way which might have been quite well avoided if more foresight had been displayed by the Government. I do not know whether there still exists the
awful doctrine which used to be known as "creating an atmosphere," and then doing something which was pleasing to the forces of disorder, in order to try and buy off their opposition to some legislative or administrative proposal That always was a most fatal policy. I do not believe it ever succeeded, and I believe it is treated by those who are engaged in fomenting disorder as one more evidence of the fact that, as long as they hit hard enough, the Government are certain to yield. I class in the same category the failure of the Government to take every possible step for the punishment of crime. This is not a question of coercion in the sense of submitting the people of the country to novel restrictions. Where a crime has been committed, a murder, the Government are bound to do everything they can to bring the murderer to trial, and if they find that, owing to the failure of criminal procedure in Ireland, they cannot get a conviction, they are bound to amend that procedure so as to enable them to get a conviction, provided of course they do it with justice and fairness to all concerned.
I cannot help feeling that there has been a want of resource, to put it mildly, in the Government of Ireland. I do not know how it strikes other hon. Members, but I cannot believe that these spectacular raids in the middle of the night, when large numbers of people have been arrested and imprisoned, sometimes, I daresay, on very good grounds, though I cannot believe always the grounds have been good, because the thing has been done in such a wholesale way—I cannot believe this form of repression has ever shown, or is ever likely to show, good results. I shall hope to hear that that form of repression has been abandoned. It is not the right way of dealing with the present situation, and for an excellent reason. You catch a number of people—a hundred or a couple of hundred. Some of them are guilty; some of them, I expect, are quite innocent. You put them all together in a prison. Since some of them may be innocent, you cannot punish them really. You intern them, with more or less severity, less, as I understand now, than before, and I daresay quite rightly less. The result is that the people who really have committed or have been accessory to the commission of these horrible crimes get off with perfectly
derisory punishment whereas the people who are innocent have to endure the same punishment without any cause whatever for it. Such a method of proceeding, I should have thought, cannot have any real deterrent effect against crime, and is evidently open to what, at the best, may be called serious misapprehension.
I hesitate, in a matter of this kind, to make any suggestion. This is an Executive matter and one, therefore, on which it is exceedingly difficult for one who is outside to make positive suggestions without it may be even doing harm. Still, I am going to risk making one or two. I have no belief in sensational forms of coercion. That is not what is wanted at all. Dramatic gestures by the Government are the last thing that is needed. We do not want to treat this as a fight between justice and crime. Treat it in as common-sense and commonplace a way as you possibly can. I believe if you enforce the ordinary criminal law and see that it really is enforced it is quite enough. I do not believe you have anything to gain, as far as criminal law is concerned, by enlarging it or by creating exceptional crime. If you cannot enforce it now, you want to make such changes in your procedure as will give you a better chance of being able to enforce it. Take the question of murder. I am told there are two difficulties. In the first place, there is the difficulty of getting evidence; and in the second place, even if you do get it, there is difficulty in getting a conviction. You cannot altogether get over the difficulty of getting evidence. You may do something, and I believe the moment you make the criminal law function you will find your difficulties in getting evidence much less. But there are cases in which, for one reason or another, you are able to get it—the evidence of police or soldiers or a man who may have made a dying statement. Such cases exist. Then your only difficulty is to get a conviction. You must have the trial under such conditions that it would be perfectly fair both to the prosecution and to the defence. You must bring the prisoner, if necessary, to this country and try him here. You must take whatever measures are necessary in order to secure a really fair trial and a conviction and a decision according to the evidence that is given. Soldiers should not be used, or should be used as little as possible, for police work, but they should be used to protect the police, and, of course, to prevent anything like
a rising or disorder. I mean they are not to be employed in arresting people. That is not their main function. Let the police do that, but let the soldiers be there to see that the police are not shot in doing their duty. As far as possible, you should get it out of the atmosphere of military operations. You should say, This is an ordinary case of crime, and very bad crime, and we are going to treat it as a very serious offence against the criminal law. You want, as far as possible, to demilitarise your administration and make it a very strong civil government. I doubt very much whether the Lord Lieutenant should be, under the circumstances, a distinguished soldier, unless he has some very special administrative capacity.
The House must realise, if it is going to face the situation properly, that all these crimes are justified, by the men who commit them, upon the ground that they are at war. They speak and they write as belligerents. It is not war. They have no right to treat it so, and we should be foolish if we allowed them to treat it so or conceded anything of the kind to them. This is anarchy, promoted by despicable civil crime, and it must be dealt with on that footing. I am quite sure if there is to be any hope of any improvement in the relations between this country and Ireland, if there is to be any hope for any scheme of autonomy or Home Rule or self-government, call it what you will, you must give it a chance by re-establishing civil government in Ireland. To attempt any such scheme at present is to court disaster, and merely to do your best to perpetuate the difficulties under which we labour. That is one argument which I commend to those who regard my view as mediaeval. I do not accept that doctrine. I think you will never settle the Irish question except in accordance with the wishes of the Irish people. I believe that to be a great truth which we have to realise. I do not think it is any use offering them something they do not want, or, still less, forcing it upon them, but in order to give them a fair chance, and to enable them to put freely what they really do want, you must give them the guarantees of security and orderly government. Therefore, even on that ground, I press very strongly that the Government should make the utmost effort to secure this first elementary duty of Government.
It is not that which moves me most. To me the present state of things is a
disgrace to the British name. That any such state of things should exist in the British Empire is an intolerable humiliation. It does not mean only that we have failed in our duty. We have always prided ourselves on the fact that we bring order and good government and justice to every country to which we go, yet here at our very doors is a country where all these words are a positive satire on what actually exists. It means that we are deserting and failing in our duty towards a large body of law-abiding fellow citizens. It means that we are creating a danger to the whole Empire, and if we allow a state of things to exist like this in one part of the Empire, we are offering a premium to the fomentors of disorder in every other part. What is the policy of the Government in these circumstances? Are they prepared to sacrifice all personal considerations and to abandon any pre-conceded ideas, rather than permit this state of things to go on any longer? Let us be perfectly certain of this, that we are drifting through anarchy and humiliation towards an Irish republic. That is the only logical conclusion of this state of things unless it is remedied. If you are beaten by the forces of disorder you will have to capitulate. If you think, and the Government tell us that they do think, that a republic would be a great danger to the Empire, that it is unthinkable, then they must justify that belief by showing that they are able and willing to govern the country as it ought to be governed in a civilised land.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Thousands of law-abiding people in the south of Ireland will be grateful to the Noble Lord for having brought forward this resolution, and they will read the Debate anxiously to-morrow to know whether there is any prospect of their being allowed to live under civilised conditions. The Noble Lord has in no way overdrawn the picture of the present state of Ireland. It is very difficult for this House to imagine the conditions under which their fellow-subjects are living in the three southern provinces. There are certainly plenty of crimes which have been committed in Ireland. According to a recent statement of the Government, over one thousand of these crimes have been attributed to the Sinn Fein movement. But the terrorism in Ireland today is not measured by the crime in any
degree, because when you get to a certain pitch of terrorism crime is no longer necessary to enforce the dictates of these desperate and lawless bodies that come into existence. At the present time there is no police protection of any kind over by far the greatest portion of Ireland; the country is ruled by irresponsible secret committees. It is quite the normal procedure for Equity Courts, as they call them, to be set up, and for people to be summoned before them on the ground that they hold their land under Parliamentary title. Whether they bought their land, or whether they got it under one of the Land Acts passed by this House makes no difference. The point is that they hold the land under British title and not under the title, as they say, of the Irish nation. These people, if they go to the courts, find themselves ordered to give up the land. Generally, they do not go to the court, but they are ordered to give up their land, and there are many recent cases where they have been murdered for non-compliance. The point is that where there is no police protection, and where these courts have full sway over the country, it is not necessary to murder very many people. Having murdered one or two persons, the other people in the same position feel that it is useless to stand out.
In the same way the calenders of the Assize Courts do not give any true picture of the state of the country. At one assize which is about to be held, there were, three weeks ago, over 12 cases of malicious injury; but several litigants were taken down to the shores of the loch and were given the choice of going into the loch and never coming out again or withdrawing their case. The result is that when I last heard only two cases were still standing for trial. The strain on the police is almost impossible to imagine. In many parts of Ireland many proclamations have been spread broadcast that the police by their service to the British Government have forfeited their lives, and they and other public officials are likely to be shot at sight. Other proclamations have laid it down that it is a crime liable to instant death even to speak to the police Under these circumstances, it is perfectly astounding that the police have carried out their duties with the devotion that they have shown.

9.0 P.M.

No one wants to add to the difficulties of the Government by unnecessary criticism, but I must say that they have shown a most astounding lack of judgment in some of their recent courses in Ireland. This afternoon, it was understood from the answer of the Government that there is going to be no change in the method and personnel of the Irish Government. I agree with Noble Lord that it is time there was a change in personnel so that the Government is no longer a military Government, but goes back to civil courses. If the answer of the Leader of the House was inspired by his loyalty to his colleagues, I do not wish in any way to criticise it—there has been too much throwing over of subordinates in Ireland—but, in view of the possibility that the right hon. Gentleman really means that there is going to be no change, I do want to suggest one or two mistakes that have been made in Ireland, and to suggest possible methods of bringing about improvements. First of all, it was folly for the Government to evacuate, as they did, the police barracks. It was quite unnecessary. If they had used their military forces in a reasonable way, and in a way which would have occurred to any General fit to command a division in France, the police could perfectly well have remained in their barracks supported by the Army. I do not say that the Army ought to have been used for the ordinary work of the police; but they could have been used to patrol and keep up connections, and support the barracks, instead of sitting inactively while the barracks were being raided. I believe there is not one single case where a police barracks has been attacked that it has been supported by a military force. Now the position is very difficult to retrieve, because 250 barracks have been burned, and it is necessarily very difficult for the Government to re-establish the police in those deserted areas. Locking up people without trial and then letting them out is an absolutely disastrous course. It is disastrous, because the people who have given information on which these men have been locked up, know that in many cases it is their death warrant, and this adds to the feeling that if you want to live a safe life in Ireland, you must not take sides with the Government. There have been, no doubt, many cases where it has been necessary to arrest people for murder or conspiracy
to murder, but where it would not be fair to the witnesses who have given their evidence under a condition of secrecy nor would it be expedient in the public interest, to disclose the case against these men. These cases should be as few as possible, and those who are thus arrested should be treated under the most favourable conditions that are consistent with the loss of liberty. It is absolutely repugnant to the majority of the British people, that untried men should be kept under arrest, but if in exceptional cases public safety demands confinement, it must be not in any way punitive confinement, and should be the most comfortable internment that could be produced. I do not say this because I have any feeling that these people are not quite rightly detained, but the point is, you must' not treat unconvicted prisoners as if they had committed a crime. Once you start on that principle Heaven knows where it is going to land you.

The Attorney-General, I think this afternoon, said that those people who were interned, and also the people who had been arrested, could always appeal to the Committee under the Defence of the Realm Act. That is perfectly useless in the case of Sinn Feiners, because they do not recognise the British Courts or British authority in any degree. It is entirely unreasonable, but the point is, that by saying that they cannot get comfortable treatment when they are neither convicted nor under any charge without going to a British Court, gives them an easy opportunity of making themselves martyrs and becoming popular. If people are arrested in Ireland and no charge is brought against them, they should automatically be given the best treatment consistent with loss of liberty, and harshness in unconvicted cases of the kind which recently led to the hunger-strike, is the greatest folly in present conditions in Ireland, because it only stirs up a great deal of sympathy for those who break the law. Internment, instead of being the normal weapon, should be used as little as possible. The main weapon should be effective prosecution of those who commit murder.

The general impression one gets of recent Irish administration is that the Government have been hitting much too indiscriminately and not half hard enough. Until punishment again follows crime no
improvement can be expected. Since the beginning of last year over forty of the police and several civilians have been murdered on political grounds. I believe that there have also been a hundred attempted murders, quite apart from many unknown murders, corpses being picked up riddled with bullets in the fields without there being any knowledge as to whether the crime arose out of politics or otherwise. I believe that in no single case has anybody been convicted of any of these murders of the police or civilians in connection with politics. No Irish jury, I understand, can even convict anybody for attempted murder, and the reason for it is very easy to understand. There is such complete terrorism of the jury that an acquittal would be a matter of course, if the Government brought a case to trial.

The Noble Lord has alluded to the difficulty of getting evidence. I agree with him, but it is not merely because of the terrorism. I think that there are plenty of men brave enough in Ireland to give evidence if they felt that it would be of any use, and it is simply because the witnesses know that if they do come forward they are not going to produce any advantage to the public and the accused man will only become a popular hero. The Government have offered a reward in Ireland for evidence which leads to conviction. "The offer is absolutely ludicrous in present conditions, because the offer is only contingent on a conviction before a tribunal which everybody who knows the conditions knows could not possibly convict without every jury being under sentence of death by some secret society; and it is absolutely necessary if that offer of protection and reward for giving evidence is to be of any use that some tribunal should be set up prepared to find a verdict in accordance with the facts. Then I believe that it would get witnesses, whereas in the present conditions witnesses know quite well that it is quite impossible for them to get the compensation which is differed by the Government as a reward for a conviction. There would be no difficulty and no injustice in taking power to bring these murder cases over to the Old Bailey. There is a precedent to secure a fair trial. In the Bugeley murder case a special Act was passed bringing Palmer to trial in London, and much as one would deplore anything in the way of
unfair coercion I am sure that no one, either in Ireland or in England, would say that an Old Bailey jury would be an unfair tribunal. The jury would not be intimidated, and there would be every prospect of a finding in accordance with the facts.

I believe that if the Government were to adopt a policy of this kind they would find a tremendous amount of support in Ireland itself. There is no doubt that a majority of the Sinn Fein party hate this terrorism just as much as any of us, but they are powerless to stop it. They are not responsible for the country, and until the Government, which has the whole question of law and order in its hands, takes steps to enforce it, neither Sinn Fein nor any other agency in Ireland is in a position to get respect for the law or defence for human life. If the Government let the country get more out of hand this precious Home Rule Bill which they produce will be absolutely a dead letter, even if they pass it, and no Government in the South of Ireland would be mad enough to take over the control of the country when by their inaction the British Government had allowed it to lapse into a state of anarchy hardly equalled by the present condition of Russia. I do not ask in any way for indiscriminate coercion. There has been too much indiscriminate action in Ireland so far, but I do beg the Government that they will stop their vacillating policy and will adopt a reasonable course to vindicate law, and when they have made up their minds, brought in their measure, and asked Parliament for power, that they will stick to the course which they have laid down.

Mr. WALLACE: As a lover of law and order and a convinced and life-long Home Ruler, I wish to intervene for a few minutes in this Debate. Nobody doubts for a moment that the Irish administration at the present time is faced by many difficulties, and the House is only too willing to support the Government in all legitimate things for bringing peace and order to a distracted and unhappy country. It is a pitiful tragedy that, at the time when this country is engaged in bringing, or attempting to bring, healing and peace to nations which have been engaged in war, at our own door Ireland is in a state of rebellion. Armed assassins stalk abroad in the land, immune from arrest and in prac-
tical security. What is the cause of this extraordinary position? I believe it lies in the fact that 50 per cent. of the Irish are in sympathy with the Sinn Fein movement and the other 50 per cent. are terrorised into silence, so far as giving any evidence is concerned. This state of things is alien to the Irish race. I have been in Ireland many times, North, South, East and West, before the War, and I never met anything but most charming courtesy from every class there. Now that is entirely changed, and I quite believe that our newspapers to-day give only a very small part indeed of the actual state of rebellion in Ireland, as those who have visited it recently can testify. We have heard several very wise observations from the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) to-night, but I do not think he has attempted at all to get at the cause of this extraordinary condition. What is the cause? I think it is threefold. I have not the slightest desire to introduce any recriminations into this Debate, but I suggest that the Noble Lord and some of his Unionist friends are not altogether free from responsibility or blame for the present condition of Irish affairs. The Ulster rebellion of 1914 was openly encouraged by Unionists on this side of the Channel, and, if I may be permitted, I should like to read a short extract from one of the speeches of the Noble Lord himself, delivered at Leamington in November, 1912. He said:
Rebellion was a thing which no one wished lightly to undertake, but history showed that it had been successful, and it might be successful if the cause were good and the strength sufficient. It did not aim at suspending Government, but at substituting one Government for another.
That is what the Sinn Feiners are attempting to do to-day. The Noble Lord also said in February, 1912:
If Home Rule were persisted in it would lead to civil war, and if he lived in Belfast he would seriously consider whether rebellion were not better than Home Rule. There is no stopping place between Home Rule and separation.
The Noble Lord has changed his point of view, because to-night he told us that he is now prepared to settle the Irish question according to the wish of the majority.

Lord R. CECIL: I did not say that.

Mr. WALLACE: I took down the Noble Lord's words at the time, and I under-
stand he said that he was prepared to settle the Irish question along the lines of the wish of the majority.

Lord R. CECIL: I said I did not believe there was any settlement possible, except in accordance with the wishes of the Irish people.

Mr. WALLACE: That is substantially my point. I regard "the Irish people" as the whole of the population of Ireland. I welcome a belated conversion rather than no conversion at all, and I am very glad that the Noble Lord is now taking a more reasonable view of the Irish demand. I suggest that the first cause was the Ulster rebellion and the sympathy with which it met from Unionists on this side of the Channel. I regard the second cause as the reactionary methods of the military in Ireland in recruiting in the early days of the War—methods which were referred to by the present Prime Minister in this House as absolutely malevolent or malignant. The third cause I believe to be this, that for generations this country has attempted to rule Ireland, not by the wish of the majority of the people of Ireland, but by the order of the minority. I consider that that is at the root of the whole question. You have 102 Irish Members returned to this House. Year after year and election after election you had 86 returned demanding, constitutionally, Home Rule for Ireland, and 16 against it. You chose to listen to the 16 and neglected the constitutional demand of the 86. The result we see on the Irish Benches to-night. You have this miserable remnant of that great constitutional party, distinguished, not by its numbers, but by its ability and eloquence.

Mr. DEVLIN: And undismayed.

Mr. WALLACE: That is why crime is rampant in Ireland to-day. What is the remedy? The Government arrest men on suspicion, and it is very difficult, having regard to the state of Ireland to-day, to see how that can be avoided. But even if men are arrested on suspicion, whether on reputable evidence or on that of the common informer, are they to be allowed to lie languishing in gaol for months without a definite charge being brought against them, and with no opportunity of fair trial? I feel sometimes in this House that the conscience of America will not stand this method of British justice.
Appeals to the conscience of America leave me very cold, and I am much more concerned with the satisfaction of the conscience of my own country, and I believe it would be regarded as an intolerable stain on the character of our country s on its legal traditions, on which we all pride ourselves, if one of these men, arrested on suspicion, with no charge brought against him, and not brought to trial, were to die, even as the result of a hunger strike. With a convicted man, where evidence has been given of his complicity in murder and outrage, I should, in the event of a hunger strike, let nature take its course, but certainly not in the case of men such as we are considering now. I consider that the Advisory Committee suggested this afternoon by my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) should be set up to deal with these men, and that their decisions ought to be made public.
My hon. Friend referred to the Viceroy of Ireland being a military man. I am not here to make any attack upon the present Viceroy, but it is certainly quite in accord with the sentiments of this House that the Viceroy should not be a military man, and even, indeed, if he be a civilian, that he should be more or less a figure-head in Ireland, so far as policy and administration are concerned. We in this House are concerned only with the responsible Minister in this House, the Irish Secretary, and it is to him we look for satisfaction on all these matters. I would urge that on this unhappy subject we shall have at least the satisfaction of knowing that the supreme administration in Ireland is in the hands of the civil power. We hear a great deal about the competent military authorities. In all these matters I have the most sincere distrust of any military authority, however competent, and I do hope that it will be one of the changes in store for us when we have our new Irish Secretary in this House that all these matters will be subject to his authority, he himself being responsible to this House, and that in all Irish affairs he will keep the military in their proper place.

Mr. JELLETT: Perhaps, as the only representative of the South of Ireland who happens to be present, it may not be altogether inopportune if I am allowed to say a few words. I desire to speak with all moderation and to avoid exaggeration, but it is almost impossible for anyone who
is not resident there on the spot to realise the present state of affairs in the South and West of Ireland. Law, as we understand it, does not exist. There is no such thing. The King's Courts are treated with contempt. The property of law-abiding citizens is adjudicated upon and transferred from one to another at the bidding of the Courts set up by the Sinn Feiners. The Sinn Fein Courts are crowded; the magistrates' Courts are half empty. I would like the House to realise one thing, and this Debate will not have been altogether in vain if the House does realise it. The Sinn Feiners are out to destroy the last vestage of British authority in Ireland, and they are out either to drive the Royalists out of the country or to compel them to surrender and to give up their property if they remain. I am sorry to say that things are very much worse to-day than they were a year or two ago.

Mr. DEVLIN: Since the Convention.

Mr. JELLETT: We have all been familiar with the activities of the Sinn Feiners during the last few weeks, but they have now got even beyond that. The state of affairs in parts of Ireland now is, as has been described by the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil), nothing but absolute anarchy, and the anarchy that prevails in the South and West of Ireland is merely a repetition of that Bolshevism that has been the ruin of Russia. Hon. Members perhaps may not be surprised if the loyal men and women in the South of Ireland look with absolute horror at what is going on there. It is not merely that their property is unsafe. Their lives are hardly endurable, those of them who are allowed to live at all. The Noble Lord read an extract from a letter, the original of which I happen to have in my hand. It was a letter addressed to myself. Perhaps I may be allowed to read one or two passages to which the Noble Lord did not refer:
Clergymen have been robbed and prevented from carrying out their most sacred ministrations to the dying and burying the dead. In these parts it is an organised system of robbery by threats, intimidation, and voilence, taking advantage of the utter helplessness of law-abiding people. Scores of such people have repeatedly appealed to the County and District Inspectors for protection and the invariable reply is that they have no force available for the purpose and that they have been for months asking for military help and have been refused. My
own locality was perfectly peaceable until the police were taken away. Now it is a perfect Hell. We have enough house accommodation for police and military but are refused any help. If detachments of military were posted here and there to strengthen the police, lawlessness would quickly subside. If that is not done, loyal people have no alternative but to join Sinn Fein or submit to the robbery of their property and likely the loss of their lives.
The writer concludes the letter by saying:
I must withhold my name for obvious reasons.
The only clue that I can give the House is that the letter comes from the West of Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: There is not a word of truth in the statement about the robbery of clergymen. It is an absolute lie.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: No.

Mr. JELLETT: I am very sorry to find that an hon. Member coming from Ireland is so lamentably ignorant of the state of affairs in that country.

Mr. DEVLIN: I come from Belfast. What is it that surprises you?

Mr. JELLETT: I am surprised at the extraordinary—

Mr. DEVLIN: That letter is a lie.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): If the hon. Member will rise in his place at the conclusion of the hon. Member's speech, he will be entitled to point out wherein he says that the letter is inaccurate.

Mr. DEVLIN: On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member entitled to read an anonymous letter, reciting a series of alleged facts that have never appeared in any newspaper? I challenge the hon. Gentleman who recites that story. There is not a single item of truth in the statement, and I do not care where he reads it or where it appears.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is perfectly within his rights in bringing forward his evidence, and in stating that he was unable, for obvious reasons, to give the name or the place. I must protest against these irregular interruptions on both sides. The hon. Member will be entitled to put his side of the case when he rises later on.

Mr. DEVLIN: I have no side later on.

Mr. JELLETT: I am perfectly satisfied to leave the matter to the judgment of the House. The Noble Lord said something about remedies. No one recognises more clearly than I do the tremendous difficulties of the Government. Something has been said to-night about the responsibility. That may be a matter of opinion. There are one or two facts that ought to be kept in mind. One is that this tremendous prevalence of the carrying of arms in Ireland dates from 1906, when the Peace Preservation Act was allowed to lapse. If that fatal mistake had not been made, things would be very different to-day. The Noble Lord made a suggestion which certainly struck me as very remarkable, and worthy of the most serious consideration. We all in Ireland know only too well that there are no tribunals, such as are provided by the law, that will convict on any conceivable evidence that can be brought forward where it is a question of crime such as we are discussing to-night. You may have the best evidence you can conceive, and you empanel your jury and put the evidence before them, and the result is a foregone conclusion. That is the present state of affairs. The Noble Lord has suggested as a possible remedy that the venue might be changed to the Old Bailey, where the result would be achieved that you would have a perfectly fair trial. There is one important matter which I hope the Noble Lord will not forget. What about the witnesses that you will have to produce and their fate? What is going to happen to them? Do not let anyone imagine that if they cross the Channel and give their evidence in London, instead of somewhere in Ireland, that they are going to be a bit safer. The organisation that you are up against in Ireland will not confine its operations to the shores of that island. They will pursue their victims, if necessary, to the ends of the earth, and that is one of the tremendous difficulties the Government is up against. It would probably be considered impertinent on my part to make suggestions to His Majesty's Government, and I do not propose to do so, for, amongst other reasons, that I do not think this is the place to discuss actual remedies. That is a matter for the Executive Government to decide, and I do not think it is a matter for discussion in this House. But I do ask His Majesty's Government to remember this:
When you once say you are going to do a thing, do it.

Captain REDMOND: What about the Home Rule Act?

Mr. JELLETT: If ever there was a country where vacillation is absolutely disastrous, it is Ireland. Let the people of Ireland know that you are determined to put this down. Let them know that there will be no more truckling with treason and sedition, let them know that loyalty in Ireland, instead of being at a discount, is going to be at a premium, and let them know that, so far as lies within their power, they will do their best to preserve Ireland from absolute ruin, and to save the name of the British Empire and the very name of civilisation. If I am right in saying what you are up against in Ireland now is not merely a treasonable movement, but a movement linked with Bolshevism of the worst kind, do not imagine that those forces will confine their operations to that country. I shall be more than satisfied if this Debate has the result of showing this House what are the forces to whom it is now proposed to hand over the loyal population in the South and West of Ireland, and what those people are and what are their aims and their methods and their actions. If the Debate succeeds in doing that, it will not be altogether in vain.

Mr. J. JONES: I must apologise, because I happen to be an Irishman representing an English constituency. I am going to try to follow in the footsteps of those who have gone before me. Just now we have exhausted the possibilities of politics. The trouble in Ireland is that we have got such a place as Ireland on the map. If we could have transplanted it to the other end of Europe, or to some place further in the Atlantic, we should probably be a candidate for entering into the League of Nations, and entitled to the principle of self-determination, and would be able under the auspices of the Noble Lord to establish our own policy and position in the comity of nations. I would suggest to Members representing English constituencies, as I do, that the British Government have tried every way that is wrong in Ireland, and that it is now time they tried the only way which is right. Coercion has been advocated here because the proposals of some hon. Members simply amount to this, that you must establish or re-estab-
list resolute government in Ireland. Anarchy must be put an end to. I agree, as a member of a working-class organisation in Great Britain, as I am opposed to anarchy and also to what is now described as Bolshevism. But might I suggest to hon. Members opposite that anarchy grows by what it feeds on, and if a government of a country is conducted on anarchistic lines, then you have got to expect anarchy to reply to anarchy. What is the policy in Ireland and what has been the policy ever since this country became control controller there? By the policy of the Government in Ireland the minority have been the dominating factor, and that is anarchy, and the dictatorship not of the proletariat, but of a small section of the people who, by influence, have been able to bring pressure on the Government for the time being. That is the principle of anarchy. Those who are strong enough, let them take who have the power and let them keep who can. That has been the policy pursued in Ireland ever since hon. Members opposite have begun to study political history, and that is not a very long time ago.
Then there are the crimes that have taken place in Ireland. I am only speaking for myself, because I am not a leader, but I am expressing the opinion of a very large portion of the people in this community who, although they are men of Irish descent, and, in many cases, of Irish birth, have become identified with the labour and working-class movement of this country, and we are taking our part in trying to convince those with whom we have influence in favour of constitutional methods of procedure. What do we find? We find that our preaching of constitutionalism is always answered by the reply that it is only violence that succeeds, and that whatever we say, and that whatever we may do, the men who are prepared to run risks and to defy the law, as you preach it, can always score points against the men who preach constitutionalism. May I, therefore, suggest that the real anarchists sit on the Government benches, and that in supporting the present policy existing in Ireland, if there is a policy, you are supporting the anarchists and Bolshevists whom you pretend to condemn. What has made Sinn Fein so powerful in Ireland? What policy has succeeded in compelling the great number of the people of Ireland to
believe that nothing but violence will succeed? It is those who have always practically repudiated the appeals made by those who were constitutionalists. I am not going to refer to past political his Tory except in passing. I was brought up in the constitutional movement in Ireland and carried my constitutionalism over to Great Britain in common with thousands who came from Ireland to this country, and who are identified with the democratic movement. What is happening now amongst the Irish population of Great Britain? The men and women of Irish descent are joining the Sinn Fein movement by the thousand. Men who were identified with the democratic movement, some of them belonging even to the Conservative movement in various directions, are now supporting Sinn Fein because they have lost faith and hope in what might be called democratic methods of procedure. We are asking for Ireland what you have already granted to other countries who have no greater claim to rights of self-determination than Ireland has got. I read in the papers this evening that Turkey is going to have control over countries which she has absolutely outraged. I wonder if those who will support the policy of the Government in connection with Ireland will recapitulate the crimes committed by the Turks, the political crimes committed by the Serbians, the political crimes committed in South-Eastern Europe generally by one nationality against the other. Yet when it is a case of Ireland all these political offences will be brought up as evidence against the workers and the men who may be found in opposition to the British Government, and then the suggestion has been made that these men should be tried at the Old Bailey.
I wonder what chance a political criminal would stand at the Old Bailey. We in the Labour movement in this country know something about political trials at the Old Bailey. A Labour man does not stand a dog's chance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am making a statement upon facts, upon our knowledge of the kind of jury that is selected at the Old Bailey, arid I want to say that, so far as politics are concerned, those of us who are identified with the advanced Labour movement in this country know that our people at the Old Bailey have never got a fair show, because the juries have been selected by people
who are political opponents. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Our experience leads in that direction. You have never stood in a dock, but I have, and am proud of it, and will again if necessary. For what I believe, I am willing to face the risks of the Old Bailey, in spite of all the jeers and the sneers that may be expressed against me. The time might come when men in this country might find themselves in the same position as the men in Wormwood Scrubs, and if that time comes we are ready to face the music, and we will not scream, but I am asking you to remember that you cannot preach democracy in Europe and then preach autocracy in Ireland. You cannot preach to the people of the rest of the world that you are in favour of the greatest possible franchise and the right of small nationalities to decide their own destiny, and at the same time say to four and a quarter million people in Ireland under your very noses that you are going to use the same Prussian methods you have been fighting for five years to destroy. Hon. Members have asked for more soldiers in Ireland. You have sent over nearly 60,000. Have they altered the situation? Is not every town in Ireland to-day being patrolled by soldiers? Have they stopped the murders? If you double them, you will not stop them, because you have driven the people to a state of desperation, and you have made men believe there is no hope in Constitutionalism. You have made them think that if they revolt they will get what they ask for, whereas if they adopt constitutional methods they will be continually disappointed, and that is what is happening there. Act after Act that this House has passed has been more or less suspended. When the Government of this country were inclined to be generous, Members of this House fought against their acts of generosity, and having sown the wind, you are now reaping the whirlwind.
I am asking as far as I am concerned, representing an East London constituency with a large Irish population, men and women, who are Constitutionalists—40,000 of them went and fought in the early days of the War without conscription—I am asking that these people shall no longer be treated as though they were aliens. Yes, 40,000 men and women of Irish descent went from the East London area, and some of the hon. Members were try-
ing to get excused. Dock labourers who have no country to fight for in the economic sense, men who own no land, men who in their own country were as landless as larks and who had not got as much land as would house a hedgehog, these men volunteered before conscription came into force, thinking that when they fought for self-determination for Belgium they were striking a blow for the freedom of Ireland and its right to exist as a nation apart altogether from tyranny, and they come home and find themselves disappointed, and they are rushing now into the arms of Sinn Fein. They go to Wormwood Scrubs last night to sing and to encourage the prisoners in revolt against the Government of Great Britain, and that is a splendid result of the efforts you have put forward. Whether this House agrees with me or not, I demand for the country that the people of this country say they have great sympathy with the same political and democratic reforms as they are prepared to give to other countries which they have taken under their wings in the past five years. In spite of the Noble Lord opposite, who is the great protagonist of the idea of the League of Nations, I ask him what has Ireland done to be refused admission into this holy family of which he happens to be the presiding genius? Are we not a nation? Are not Irishmen entitled to the recognition of nationality as well as the Serbians, the Czecho-Slovakians, or whatever else you may call them? My language is from Hoxton, and not from Oxford, but I do say that, so far as we are concerned, we are demanding for Ireland that you shall at least give them the right of self-government. You have tried every other kind of government; now let the people decide for themselves, and I am certain of this, that if the Irish people are trusted they will be prepared to accept real democratic institutions, and they are not prepared in the majority of cases to accept any policy which is likely to lead to destruction or anarchism or Bolshevism.

Mr. PALMER: We have listened to a very interesting speech from the hon. Member who has just sat down, but it seems to me that he has made exactly the speech which was made by a right hon. Member from the Front Opposition Bench a few weeks ago, who, when he was challenged, I think it was by the Leader of the House, as to what he meant by
treatment of Ireland—did he really mean that he would give Ireland a Republic—ran away at once from that proposition.
I should not have risen to-night except that I want to enter my earnest protest against the treatment of the prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs. I am, if I may say so, a very sincere supporter of the Government when they are firm and resolute in Ireland, but I do think we are not only alienating Irish opinion, but we are alienating a good deal of the best opinion in this country, when we treat suspects as we would treat criminals. The right hon. Gentleman said, "We do not," but I do suggest to him that the action that was taken in Ireland the other day proved we were not treating the Irish suspects in Mountjoy as any decent nation should treat suspects, and I say this with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that the action of the Government proves that they could not justify the course they were taking when they were induced to pursue a more humane and more British policy. I find to-day that what happened at Mountjoy is now happening at Wormwood Scrubs, that men and women, honestly believing their compatriots are improperly treated, are assembling outside the prison and are singing songs and offering prayers. We may feel that this is a somewhat theatrical way of dealing with the situation, but I say with all respect that we are hurting the souls of those people, we are making them feel that the British Government is willing to act partially and unjustly, and I do beg of the Government, with all sincerity, to consider whether these suspects could not be treated with more consideration. Personally, I could wish that no man should be put in prison without trial and without charge made. Personally, I could wish that some system should be found by which, as we did during the War, we intern those suspects, and not actually put them under lock and key.
I am not going, at this time of night, to say anything with regard to responsibility for the position in Ireland to-day. Personally, I think the responsibility in Ireland is not the responsibility of the present Government. I think the present Government found the position in Ireland, which was largely due to the weakness and the supineness of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), whom I should have liked to have seen in this House to-night. I think if the trouble
in Ireland began with the Ulster Rebellion, it reached its biggest point in the Easter event, and when the right hon. Member for Paisley went over to Dublin and shook hands with murderers, he gave away the whole case for legality and justice in Ireland. The position to-day is that we have practically lost Ireland. The law does not run; the King's Writ has no respect; the Courts cannot give judgment. We have practically lost Ireland, unless the Government of this country take firm and resolute action, and I believe if they do they will have behind them the opinion of all that is worth anything in this House, and the whole of the people of this country. I am told that at a meeting in an upper room in this House of the Unionist Alliance which received a deputation from the Southern Unionists, a British general practically said that the only thing to do was to give Ireland a republic. That, I understand, came from a distinguished soldier who, has fought for his country and had a distinguished career in India. When he was challenged about it, he said, "If you do not give them a republic, the only course is to reconquer Ireland." In my opinion—I say it with all respect—the only course is to reconquer Ireland. We must re-establish law and order there, and we must, at the same time, prove to the people of Ireland that if they will come under the great and protecting flag of this country, mercy, justice, and generous treatment will be meted out to them in regard to self-government. I think this Debate, if I may say so, has been useful in that it has assured the Government and the Attorney-General—who, I am sure, has the sympathy of every loyal man in this House in the task before him—that if they will only be firm and just, they will have the support of this House and the support of the country.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I must say that I expected to hear, I will not call it a more interesting, but a more varied, Debate than that to which we have listened to-night. The result of it is that it seems to me there is not very much which I, as representing the Government, have to say. Let me remark at the outset that, considering what the state of Ireland is, it is not at all surprising that a Motion of this kind should be made, and that there should be some discussion of the situation. But I think it is unfortunate, and, on the
whole, not helpful, that the particular time chosen for this discussion should be when the new Chief Secretary is not able to enter upon his duties, and when it is known that a new Commander-in-Chief has been appointed, and has not had time to get accustomed to the strings of the work which lies in front of him. For that reason I do not think the Debate can be as useful as it might be at another time.
I have listened to all the speeches, I think, which have been made. I must say I do not quite follow the line of argument of my Noble Friend who moved this Motion. On the one hand, the general tenour of the speech—the tenour of which, I am bound to say, I have the completest sympathy with—was that civilised conditions must be restored in Ireland, and that that is the first duty of this or any other Government. On the other hand, as he went on I found, to my great surprise, that he asked us to do away with one of the steps which everyone who is responsible for the government of Ireland, either here or in Ireland, considers absolutely necessary, and that is the arresting of men suspected of great crimes, when there is no means of bringing them to trial. Let me re-examine what was the proposal of my Noble Friend. He said to us, "Trust to the ordinary criminal law." My Noble Friend has been brought up in a political atmosphere all his life, and I really cannot understand what he meant by that. Every weapon of the ordinary criminal law is in force, and has been put in force ever since this Government came into power, and, as an illustration of how much easier it is to talk about remedying these things than actually doing them, my Noble Friend the other day asked the Attorney-General whether he could not put into operation the Crimes Act which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council, when, as a matter of fact, that Act has been in force for the last 18 months! I do not know what he means by taking the ordinary law as the basis of restoring order in Ireland.

10.0 P.M

Let me take his alternative. He says, " Bring the people over to England, and try them at the Old Bailey." I do not in the least agree with the Noble Lord opposite in thinking that there would not be a fair trial, and the suggestion that juries there are " selected " is one with which no one will agree who knows the
administration of the law. As the hon. Gentleman told us that he came before that tribunal, and, I presume, was not satisfied with the verdict, I am not surprised that anyone in that position should think the Court was not suitable. But that is not in itself sufficient evidence. I would point out to the House that, in the first place, as was stated by the hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Jellett), even if you did that, it is absolutely hopeless, unless you can get the men in Ireland whose evidence is necessary to come over to England to give it. If they could get that, I think it would be possible in many cases to try them even in Ireland. I would like to point out this in addition: We have had trouble in Ireland many times. We have had it at recurring intervals for the last 800 years. Government after Government has had to deal with a situation, I do not say so bad as this, but a situation which at the time was described in language quite as strong as is being used to-day. Yet no Government, even in the times of Elizabeth, ever thought of this method of dealing with the question. It has been considered over and over again. As a matter of fact, it has been considered by this Government; but I ask the House to bear in mind that you are dealing not merely with the question of getting justice, but with Ireland, and you have to consider the relative effects of what is called coercion—I deny the name absolutely as a description of what you are doing to prevent crime. You have to regard the effect of the different methods. I do not think there is anyone who knows, or has had any experience whatever of Ireland, but will not say that if that course were taken, everyone in Ireland who is now against the law would regard that method as far worse than a court-martial, or anything else which was established in Ireland itself. It is not an easy thing to deal with the situation.

Let us come to the question of those who are arrested on suspicion. No one would ever take that course, if they could help it. It has been adopted, I think, nearly every time there has been this kind of outbreak of crime in Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: What good has it done?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We have, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so,
succeeded in restoring civilised conditions in Ireland on previous occasions of the same kind, and I believe we shall succeed again. Look at the necessity for it. It has been done over and over again. I pointed out that it had been done to a far greater extent than we are doing by the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). But the necessity for it is really greater now than it was then. For this reason that undoubtedly a system of terrorism is more widespread now than it has been any time in my political life. What is the result? It is perfectly impossible in most cases to get the evidence that will enable you to bring these people to trial. Yet everyone connected with the Government of Ireland—and I need not say I have tried to get as much information as I could—for it is the greatest problem with which the Government has to deal at present—every one of these people tell me that in many cases it is known perfectly well who are the people implicated in these crimes. Is there any hon. Member of this House prepared to say that with that knowledge, with the necessity that rests on every Government to protect life and property, if they can—is there anyone who, in these conditions, would allow these men to be at large to continue a conspiracy which results in the murder of innocent subjects of the King? There is no alternative.
Hon. Members speak of the way in which the prisoners are treated at Wormwood Scrubs. Not only have they been treated in a separate way, but in a way differently from those who have been convicted of any crime. I heard remarks from more than one hon. Member, and the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil), about what happened the other day in Mountjoy. I am going to be quite frank and say what are the difficulties of the situation. A reference was made to strong speeches delivered in this House, and I believe there was a reference made to a speech made by myself. The view which I take, and which was taken by the Irish Executive, is that there is a vast difference between men arrested on suspicion and men convicted of crime. There may have been mistakes, but there is a vast difference, and from my point of view this was the essential, that those men should not be allowed to be at large again to carry
on conspiracies which endanger the lives of peaceful citizens. That was the essence of it. I quite agree as to what has been said about favourable conditions, and we would have been ready to have any conditions which were reasonable; but we were not ready to allow these men to begin again preying upon society. There was no inconsistency in that, and that is my case. I had to deal with some questions with regard to a Mr. O'Brien, interned in Wormwood Scrubs, and I said then what I say now in regard to these Mountjoy prisoners, that we are not going to allow them to be at liberty to carry on their old work; but I also said that I have no objection to them being taken to a nursing home.

Lord R. CECIL: No, no!

Mr. BONAR LAW: My Noble Friend is very indignant about it, but I know the facts as well as he does. They have been let out on parole, on the understanding that they are coming back again at a particular time.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: We do not admit that.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Irish Government intend to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent these men preying on society. As has already been pointed out, they have not so far failed to come back under similar conditions. That is a thing that seems to me to be essential. If I made a mistake, I am not in the least ashamed of it. The task is not an easy one, and those who criticise should try to picture themselves what is the responsibility of those who have to deal with the position. The last thing that the Government desired was that these men should commit suicide under those conditions. We were prepared and are prepared to do anything to prevent that happening, subject to not allowing these men to get back to their old practices. It is quite likely our methods may have been mistaken. I saw a statement in the paper that I had given way in regard to this matter, but at that very moment I was in communication with the Viceroy. We had the same difficulty with the men in Mountjoy Prison as we had with those in Wormwood Scrubs. The men themselves might have refused, except on the ground that they were absolutely unconditionally released. Holding that view at that time, and thinking it possible that
no arrangement might be made, I did think it was really my duty to do what I could to take away from these people's minds the idea that by political action they would get out of prison, and my object was to try at all events to prevent them committing suicide for that reason. The difficulty may arise at any moment again, but I do not believe a single Member of this House who, faced with the same responsibility, would say, if we can possibly prevent it, we are not going to allow these men to be made martyrs in that way.
Among other suggestions made by my Noble Friend was this, that the military ought to be used more to help the police. It is very easy to say that. It may be that the military and the police have not been coordinated to the extent that is possible in this matter. The Government have shown that they realise that, and it is no reflection on that distinguished soldier Sir Frederick Shaw to say that the Viceroy and the Government thought it was essential to get someone who understood the police system, and who could co-ordinate the military with the police. It was for that reason that General Macready was chosen. I should like to say that no one who is connected with the Government of Ireland has an easy task. I was present when General Macready was invited to undertake the duty, and I feel bound to say that when a man in his position, who has gone through two very arduous years in charge of the police in London, at his age undertakes a duty of this kind he deserves well of his country, and ought to have every encouragement.
In the same way I would like to say a word about Lord French. I am sure hon. Members will admit there is no man in this country who is more ready to do what he believes to be his duty in the service of his country, and there is no one in this House, or in Ireland, or anywhere else, who would be more ready than Lord French to give up the post if he had thought the duty could be better performed by anyone else. He has the full confidence of the Government. He is doing his best in a very difficult situation, and the idea that has been circulated in some quarters that he is not willing to resign, and that the Cabinet are thinking of forcing him to resign, is not only not warranted, but is absolutely unjustifiable.
Let me say a word about the present situation. I was rather surprised to see the indignation with which the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) resented a statement as to the condition of affairs in certain parts of Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: I resented a" specific statement, in which I do not believe there is a word of truth.

Mr. BONAR LAW: During the last fortnight I have read all the police reports—

Mr. DEVLIN: But you did not read the one I resented.

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, but I have read things even more deplorable than that. There is no doubt, and it is no good denying it, that the condition of Ireland at this moment is notorious. It is probably worse than ever before. The conditions are in the last degree lamentable. I received to-day a deputation of ladies and gentlemen from the South of Ireland, who wished to describe to me the conditions in their own neighbourhood. It was not that the members of that deputation urged me not to let their names be given in public, but I was warned, and when it was put to them they admitted it, that, if the names of people coming as a deputation to put their case before the British Government were made public, their lives would be in danger. It is no use disguising the situation. How is it to be remedied? An hon. Member opposite has a very simple remedy—give Ireland exactly what it wants. What does Ireland want?

Mr. DEVLIN: Self-determination.

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not so simple as that. It has been said again and again in our speeches in connection with the Government Bill that, whatever can be done in that way—and the Government mean to do what they have undertaken—it is the first essential of any Government that the condition which prevails in Ireland should not be allowed to continue. It is not, however, easy to remedy. I am sure that even the limited number of hon. Members who represent the Nationalist party in Ireland will not suspect me of desiring to aggravate the position there, but it does seem to me that the position psychologically is perhaps a little worse than it has ever been before. I think that
is due to the following reasons: First of all, war has created a different atmosphere all through the Empire. In the second place, the rebellion in Easter week had a very great effect, I think, on subsequent proceedings. I venture to say, not that the British Government should have been much more severe in putting it down, but that I do not think any other Government in the world that I have heard of would have treated that rebellion so leniently.

Captain REDMOND: What about the South African Rebellion?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I leave it to the House to judge whether any other Government in the world would have treated it so leniently. I do not say we were wrong in that. It is one of the tragedies in the history of the world—it was referred to my Noble Friend—that such a state of matters should have arisen between Ireland and this country There is nobody in this House who does not know that, whatever may have been the case in the past—and undoubtedly Ireland was badly used in some periods of her history—for the last generation and more this country has had only one desire, and that is to get on good terms with Ireland. In spite of that we see the situation as it is. You cannot cure it in a day. At the same time I say that this Government must restore decent conditions in Ireland. It is not easy. If there are any in this House who think that it can be done simply by sending scores of thousands of soldiers, it is a great mistake.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Why?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Member will think about it he will see that you must have a number of soldiers to deal in an intelligent way with those at the centre of the trouble, but to scatter soldiers all over Ireland would not cure the evil. While we are determined to use our powers to the utmost to restore decent conditions—and although I believe the difficulty of the problem has rarely if ever been so great, I believe we shall succeed yet—at the same time, at the very moment we are doing that, we are going to do what we can to convince not only reasonable Irishmen, but the world, that we are dealing justly with Ireland. The picture is a very black one, but there are some signs that the excesses are having this effect—that
they are now being directed against the men who call themselves Sinn Feiners, that they are suffering, and I cannot help thinking that the effect of that on Ireland will be to make them welcome the restoration of reasonable government, and to try themselves to find some way out of the existing impasse. That is my belief, and in that belief I ask the House of Commons, not to take it for granted that we are doing everything in the best way, but to give us credit for recognising that it is a problem which has to be dealt with, and I will go further. If the Government fail after a reasonable time—remember they took a longer time in previous periods of unrest like this in Ireland—I remember them well myself—and after giving proof that they have done everything they can, if they fail to restore reasonable conditions in Ireland, I say the Government ought not to continue to exist.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us for what period he is going to employ military forces?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The one difficulty at this moment is in getting the police force and the military force to co-operate properly. It is in the hope of doing this that we have made the change in the Commander-in-Chief, and no one recognises more than I do that if we are to get decent conditions in Ireland it has to be done by the use of the police, but having the police supported in every way that is necessary by the military.

Brigadier-General CROFT: The speeches that have been delivered have been useful in that we have discussed the position in Ireland, which is getting worse daily, but I do not agree with the criticisms of the Government with regard to these men who are definitely suspected of being the instigators of murder and crime, and who are, because it is impossible to get convictions, held under His Majesty's pleasure in some form of imprisonment. The speech of the Leader of the House has made that quite clear to anyone who did not think it before. The position is impossible, and if, when you know people are deliberately engaged in instigating murder, you are to continue to permit them to go free because you could not get any jury on the spot to convict, if the Government failed to see that those people are kept from mischief they would be failing very much in their duty. I want to ask the
Leader of the House if he can inform us whether at any time Lord French asked for greater powers from the Cabinet and such powers have not been granted?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am glad to have an opportunity of saying that, in my belief, no powers of any kind asked for by the Irish Executive have been refused by the Cabinet.

Brigadier-General CROFT: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made that clear, because there have been suggestions in the Press to that effect, and if it is not true it is obviously unfair to Lord French. At the same time it must be clear that the Irish Government at the present moment is not, to put it mildly, succeeding, and it ought to be considered whether, if this policy is to be continued in a progressive manner, the time has not come to ask someone else to take over the burden of responsibility, so that law and order can be restored in Ireland. The policy of trying to win back Ireland to a law-abiding frame of mind has been tried and has failed. We heard this evening the policy of the Government, described by the Leader of the House, which was regarded as weakness by many people in this country at the time of the Easter rebellion. Where people definitely undertook at that time to take a serious course, I cannot believe that you really commanded the respect of the people of Ireland by appearing to them to be weak and unwilling to enforce the same law upon them as you would enforce upon rebels in this country.

Mr. DEVLIN: You were a rebel once, and you know it.

Brigadier-General CROFT: The hon. Gentleman says that I was a rebel in Ulster. I would certainly have been prepared to go to fight for Ulster if any endeavour had been made to drive Ulster against her will out of a political system in which she desired to remain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am surprised to hear that even Members of the Labour party should now go back upon a pledge which I understand was delivered by the Leader of the Labour party at that time, making it perfectly clear that they were not in favour of that coercion. But memories are very short. The fact remains that whenever steps are taken to give unusual treatment to Ireland different from the law of the land in England,
Scotland and Wales, you are convincing Ireland that you are afraid to govern. It was exactly the same when Mr. De Valera announced himself as the President of the Irish Republic. If any man had got up in Manchester and proclaimed himself the President of a Soviet Republic there, with a general measure of support, he would have been tried for high treason, and if anybody had taken his place, he, too, would have been tried for high treason. The consequence is that Irish people realise that you are not enforcing the law, and from the moment you permitted this gentleman to pronounce himself as the President of the Irish Republic and did not take action, you encouraged everyone to believe in Ireland that you were afraid to grasp the nettle and to deal with the situation.
All the evidence tends to show that the Government are more and more failing to hold the reins of government in Ireland. The situation is one which cannot be treated lightly any longer in this House. Death has become so cheap that we do not realise what is happening, and that these men who are being murdered day by day are our servants, sent by this House to preserve innocent people from suffering. These men are being done to death in the most foul manner, and: it is amazing that this country has not yet realised the immensity of these crimes. One feels bound to ask whether you are going to stop these murders by pursuing your present Irish policy. The Government are proceeding with the Home Rule Bill, and the result has been that crime has doubled and doubled again since that Bill was introduced. We are not going to win these people by such a policy as that Is the Government going to make it clear that until the people of Ireland become constitutional and recognise the law of the land no Bill of any description can be proceeded with? Has not the time passed when we can go on with the present method? Is it not a fact that day after day things are becoming worse? Am I exaggerating when I say it is no longer a question of Sinn Fein, but that Ireland is rapidly developing into a Bolshevik community? In face of that, can you afford to go on with your present powers under your present machinery? Is the terrorism to continue, under which every man who loves his country and desires to be loyal goes in terror of his life and dares not say he is in favour of
upholding the law, or has the time not come when some new powers must be taken, when there must be a change in the Irish Executive, and, if necessary, full power should be given to the military, and, if you cannot get trials under civil law, that you should impose martial law throughout the length and breadth of Ireland?

Lord R. CECIL: In view of what the Leader of the House has said, I do not desire to press this Motion to a Division at the present time, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1920–21.

COLONIAL OFFICE.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £169,810, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant in Aid and other expenses connected with Oversea Settlement.

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £169,710, be granted for the said, Service."

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I am glad that we have got back to the Vote which was under discussion. The fact that in this House to-day only some four and a half hours is given to a discussion of the questions affecting our great Dominions and Colonies overseas proves quite clearly that the Parliamentary machine, so far as dealing with all these matters is concerned, has completely broken down. As other hon. Members wish to speak, I will make my remarks as brief as possible. The question to which I wish to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies is the question to which the Senior Member for the City of London has already drawn the attention of the Government, and one as to which I have
put questions in this House on more than one occasion. That is the question of the separate representation of Canada at the British Embassy at Washington. I put questions to the Under-Secretary for the Colonies last year. A Debate had taken place in the Canadian House of Commons in which it was suggested that a separate Canadian representative should be appointed at once. The Under-Secretary will remember that when I put a question on that subject he replied that the matter was under negotiation between the Canadian Government and this Government. I repeated the question this year, and the hon. Gentleman informed me that the matter was still under consideration.
Now I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that great interest has been excited quite recently in Canada by the forecasts of the powers which it is proposed should be exercised by the diplomatic representative of Canada at Washington. I believe it to be the case that, while Canadians generally are in favour of diplomatic representation at Washington, there are many that have given deep consideration to this subject who see that the position of the representative of Canada at Washington would be an anomalous one. Seeing that the Dominion of Canada is not an independent country, the authority of the Canadian representative would be impaired if he were subordinate to the British Ambassador. May I quote to the Committee the substance of a paragraph which appeared in a very important Canadian newspaper, the "Toronto World," which asked these questions:
Will the Canadian representative be a Canadian representative with allegiance only to Canada, or will he be subordinate to the British Ambassador legally owing his appointment to the authority which appoints his superior. If he is to be under Sir Auckland Geddes and Canada pays his salary, will he in fact be the representative of London or the representative of Ottawa?
The "Times" Correspondent, after citing other instances, deals with the situation which will probably arise if the proposal be carried out. He goes on to say:
It will be a triumph for diplomacy indeed to instal a Minister plenipotentiary in Washington, who will represent two nations without being finally accountable to either. The War is indeed teaching us many things.
The questions put by the "Toronto World" are very pertinent, indeed, and they throw into very broad relief the
immense intricacy of this problem. Canada is not the only Dominion which is concerned in this matter. Surely, if Canada be separately represented at Washington, it will be only a very short step to the other Dominions, at least expressing a wish, that they also should be separately represented. I purpose to-night to make a definite suggestion to the Government in this matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that at the Imperial War Conference on April 16th, 1917, a Resolution was passed dealing with the Constitution of the Empire. I will briefly quote it to the Committee.
 The Imperial War Conference are of the opinion that the readjustment of the Constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire is too important and intricate a subject to be dealt with during the War, and that it should form the subject of a special Imperial Conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities. They deem it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly pressing all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based upon a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth, and of India as an important portion of the same, should recognise the right of the Dominions and India to an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations, and should provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments may determine.
In submitting that resolution to the Conference, Sir Robert Borden laid stress upon the fact that foreign policy and foreign relations, which have been under the immediate control of the Government of the United Kingdom, must certainly in future be made compatible with the aspirations of the people of the Dominions. Other speakers from the other Dominions, Mr. Massey, Sir Joseph Ward, Sir Edward Morris, and General Smuts, laid stress upon the same point, that is to say that in future the Dominions must be brought, to an extent to which they had not hitherto been brought, into full consultation as far as our foreign relations and foreign policy were concerned. I venture to suggest to the Government that the step that it is proposed to take in respect of separate Canadian representation in Washington is the beginning of a great constitutional change. It must inevitably lead to a demand for separate representation at Washington on the part of the other great
Dominions. I therefore suggest to the Government that they should not undertake at this moment any definite arrangement with regard to this matter, and that rather than proceed any further with the negotiations that have taken place—in saying this I do not for a moment suggest that the change may not be a good one; in fact I believe it will be a good one—they should now definitely decide to mark time and to leave this particular question of the separate Canadian representation at Washington to be settled by the Imperial Conference which, according to this resolution, is to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance that the Imperial Conference will be held next year. He is well aware that the sooner it is held the better. It would have been very much better to have held it at the end of this year, but I understand that would not be acceptable or convenient to the Union of South Africa. I hope it will be held in the summer of next year, and that this question will be held up until then, and will be settled at the Conference in conjunction with other matters affecting the constitutional readjustment of the component parts of the Empire.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I wish to refer to an incident that occurred whilst I was at Hongkong. I wish it to be a reminder to the Secretary of State on a subject about which I have informed him already. During 1917, when stationed at Hong Kong as a military officer, I was invited one day to lunch at the Governor's house, the occasion being a reception to the Chinese mandarin who was the Governor of Canton. All British officers and officials of the colony were present. A discussion took place on one side of the table about a matter which had just been before the courts—a case of selling two girls, and as to whether it was legal in a British colony to buy or sell human beings. The Chief Justice, or whatever may be his proper title, laid down an obiter dictum, which was strange to the ears of an Englishman who had not been long in the colonies. It was to the effect that it was extremely doubtful as to whether slavery and the buying and selling of human bodies was not legal in Hong Kong. Since by the Proclamation taking over the territory of Hong Kong we
agreed to observe Chinese customs; and slavery at the time was one of the Chinese customs to which we believed the Proclamation referred. No punishment was inflicted, but there were Englishmen in Hong Kong who still thought it was not possible to buy and sell people legally under the British flag, and so it was heatedly discussed. One of the legal gentlemen who had been at the trial was at the lunch, and the Consul-General from Canton carried on some slight discussion relating to what they considered to be the constitutional policy as to slavery within the British Dominions. After the conversation was over, so far as the British replies were concerned, the Mandarin silenced the whole discussion by making the following observations: "It is true that under the old Manchu Dynasty slavery was a legal institution within the Dominions and Empire of China, but the moment that dynasty was swept away and a Republic established its first declaration, and its first most stringent law, was the abolition of slavery and the buying or selling of human beings, even for adoption or any other purpose, or in any other guise. Because it was a Chinese custom we found it very difficult to suppress it in China, and we have cut off the heads of hundreds of Chinamen to insist on this law being observed. Now one of the strangest things is that the only place where this can be done within the whole territory of China is Hong Kong, the possession of Britain."

Mr. WILSON-FOX: I join in the expressions of regret that this Debate, which covers a number of most important subjects affecting the whole of our Empire overseas, should have been contracted within the very narrow limits into which it has been forced by events to-day. I hope that it will be found possible to arrange at some later date before this Session closes for a continuance of the Debate, because, with the exception of the question of East Africa, I doubt if a single one of the most important and interesting topics which have been raised by hon. Members this afternoon has received anything like the adequate discussion which their importance and their interest fully deserve. It is impossible for me to deal at all in detail with any of the topics which, had
I had the opportunity, I should have liked to have discussed, not at great length, but at some length, because the topics which have been discussed to-day are topics which, from my personal experience extending over many years in Africa, I have some claim to be heard on in this House. I should specially have liked to have said something with regard to the very interesting matters which were raised in the speech of my hon and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), also in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor), both of them dealing with most interesting aspects of the general question of the relations of this country to the natives in the overseas possessions of the Empire. The reason specially why I should like to have dealt with some of those views, which were ably and most fairly put forward, is because I feel that if the hon. Members had possessed greater personal familiarity with the very diverse conditions with which they had to deal they would not perhaps have felt quite so certain either of their facts or that the views which they hold are so correct as they at present imagine. It is a great misfortune that the leaders of those who speak for Labour have not been informed by personal acquaintance with the conditions on the spot of the territories of which they speak so freely.

Mr. J. JONES: We are not responsible for our poverty.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: I was merely expressing regret that certain so-called leaders of Labour—I do not know what is meant by "Labour"—but I think it is a misfortune that they have not more adequate knowledge of our possessions overseas.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I inform the hon. Member that every single Member of the Labour Advisory Committer who have been drawing up this policy, had intimate knowledge of all the Colonies in Africa.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: I was not in particular referring to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend who, I freely admit, always takes great pains to inform himself of the subjects on which he speaks, and although we may not always agree with his views, I think every Member of this House will admit that he is always interesting to listen to, and has done his
best to inform himself on the subjects on which he speaks. I had in mind more particularly the speech of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, which I felt was sincere, was animated by generous ideals, but was curiously out of touch with the real facts. Somehow his speech seemed to me to assume that all parts of the great Continent of Africa are much the same and that the same treatment can be applied to all of them. I venture to doubt that. Nature has been extremely diverse in the gifts which she has bestowed upon these various territories. The races which inhabit them are of very varying degrees of civilisation, and am convinced, from my own experience, that the problems of each particular territory must be studied with reference to its particular circumstances, and that it is not possible to have general rules applicable to all. Therefore, I think these comparisons of West Africa with Rhodesia, with which I am particularly familiar, are really very misleading, because the conditions which apply to one do not apply to the other.
On the subject of Rhodesia, I should like to thank the Under-Secretary for the statement which he has made this afternoon, and which, coming from him, with the weight which his office bestows upon him, is of great value, and will give the utmost satisfaction to those—and they are numerous—high-minded Englishmen who, in the circumstances of that difficult and trying territory, have been for many years doing their utmost to pursue a British policy in its best sense towards the aboriginal inhabitants of these territories. I note it has been the fashion in certain quarters for many years to make out that the administration of the Chartered Company in Rhodesia has been purely selfish and purely commercial. Those of us who know, know that any such statement is a gross travesty of the facts, and we have had to endure these false accusations for many years while we knew we were doing our very utmost to raise the conditions of the native inhabitants of those territories, and have been doing it most satisfactorily. It has been the greatest satisfaction to us to know—and the satisfaction will be greater in Rhodesia, than in London—that the Colonial Office, informed as they are by such an independent and high-minded authority as Lord Buxton, is in a position to testify that the native administration of Rhodesia and the conduct of
the white settlers in Rhodesia towards the natives is really a model administration which may be treated as a model by other administrations in Africa. I should like to thank him most heartily for the public statement which is now on record, and which I hope will not again be questioned in this House. There are, I know, differences of opinion with regard to other matters with which the Chartered Company is concerned, and I do not propose to enter upon them, but anyone who has been concerned, as I have been, and has personal responsibility for such matters, does feel acutely attacks made upon the Company which he has the honour to serve, on grounds which are wholly false, and on so-called facts which have no real existence.
The other subject upon which I should have liked, had it been possible, to have said something, and at greater length, would have been the question of Empire development. There is no time to pursue it now. I took part in the Debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland) on the Address of February of last year, and it was entirely due to the courtesy of the leaders of the Labour party at that time that we had our opportunity. We had our opportunity and made our appeal to the Government, and, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead has said, that appeal did not fall on deaf ears. The Colonial Office appointed a Committee, which is now engaged in studying these matters, and I hope great good to this country and the Overseas possessions of the Empire will accrue through the operations in the future of that Committee. The day will come when it will be, I am sure, a vital necessity to find a better outlet for the savings of the new rich amongst what have hitherto been the poorer classes of this country and to give them an opportunity of favourable investment for their money. I am sure, under the guidance of the Committee, of which Lord Islington, I think, is the head, these savings will accrue if encouraged, and the thing of all others which I am-sure this House will be anxious to avoid will be that the product of these loans shall not be absorbed in meeting the current expenditure of this country. It will be necessary to find proper and remunerative directions in which those savings can be employed to advantage, and I venture to suggest to the Colonial Office that they should continue the pos-
sibility of taking advantage of these savings when the time arrives. I think that is a matter which deserves most careful consideration, and I hope that on the next occasion, when I hope this Vote will be again discussed, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies will be able to give us his views upon this and upon other matters connected with the development of the Empire.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT:—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders.]

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.